Debating Europe is happy to have partnered with the “United States of Europe” project – a travelling exhibition about European identity, citizenship and today’s Europe organised by the Paris branch of the German Goethe-Institut, alongside nine other organisations. They recently held a live debate in Brussels called “Europe, the politicians and the people – confidence and commitment?” and we’d like to continue the discussion here.

You can watch the video from the debate online (part 1, part 2 and part 3). The core of the discussion was focused particularly on the following questions:

  1. Do you feel that your voice is heard by politicians?
  2. Do you think that the politicians’ agenda is understood by citizens?
  3. Do you think that politicians understand what citizens do not (on both a national and a European level)?

Questions about political union, and whether Europe needs a federal “United States of Europe”, were outside of the scope of the debate. However, this is also an important question that we would like to address below.

Political union in Europe is no longer an abstract “pie in the sky” issue. Last week, French President François Hollande called for “economic government” in the eurozone. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also predicted a “political union” for Europe, with the EU Commission serving as the “government” of Europe.

In November 2012, Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, gave a speech at the University of Passau in Germany. She called for a “United States of Europe”, and argued that the Maastricht treaty, signed in 1992 and establishing the European Union and the euro, had been deeply flawed:

At Maastricht people wanted to have us believe that we could irreversibly establish a monetary union and a new world currency without creating a United States of Europe at the same time. That was a mistake, and now that mistake needs to be corrected if we want to continue to live in a stable, economically prosperous Europe.

This is one of the most fundamental questions we can address here on Debating Europe. If the status quo is broken (and not everybody agrees that it is), should Europe move towards a federal model? Or do we need a looser, more flexible union? Perhaps it’s time to dissolve the whole thing and return to an intergovernmental Europe?

As the travelling “United States of Europe” exhibition explains, European unification has, for centuries, been the utopia of “writers of speculative fiction, political scientists, politicians, geographers, historians and futurologists. Moreover, the concept of the United States of Europe has been evoked by many high-profile historical figures, such as Napoleon Bonaparte, the Marquis de Lafayette, Winston Churchill, Tadeusz Kościuszko and Victor Hugo.”

Of course, not everybody believes in this vision for Europe. We had a comment from Lee, for example, who argued that: “A federation is just as bad as a superstate. A confederation is just about bearable.”

In our interview last year with the British MEP Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and co-chair of the   Eurosceptics in the European Parliament, we asked him to respond to Lee’s comment.

He wasn’t particularly impressed:


I don’t see why we should put up with any structures which might be described in these terms. We need democracy – otherwise, we get tyranny. We need national sovereignty – otherwise, we cannot have democracy; and we need transparent diplomacy, voluntary cooperation and free-trade agreements between nations in order to foster prosperity and peace. We can forget centralisation and homogenisation (what Brussels calls ‘integration and harmonisation’). They are stupid, injurious and wrong, whatever the result may be called.

To get a different perspective, we spoke yesterday to the Green MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit, vocal proponent of a federal Europe and co-president of the  Greens in the European Parliament.

One of our commenters, Alex, wondered if it was really possible to forge the sense of common identity needed for a federal Europe, given that it took hundreds of years for such an identity to develop in the United States of America. Alex asked: “How could we expect to create a single European superpower after only 50 years, while the countries that compose it have been at odds [for] most of their history?

How would Cohn-Bendit respond?

cohn-benditWell, if you look historically, nation states themselves have only existed for more-or-less 150 years. And fully democratic nations have really only existed for half of that. So, when we talk about a United States of Europe, we mean it should be a European vision.

I don’t know if it will be 40 or 50 years, but it’s a vision – a future orientation for Europe. In history, if you don’t have a vision, you just go round and round and always end up back in the same place. I don’t think a United States of Europe will be there in 2 or 3 years. But this idea sets out a direction for Europe, that’s all.

And why do you believe the  Greens are best-placed to deliver this? Why should our readers vote for your group in our Debating Europe Vote 2014?

Well, I think if you look at the actions of the European Greens, you can say we have an integrated approach to politics. We are working to solve the financial, ecological and political crises, and we are making the democratisation of Europe our priority. In our arguments, in our behavior, in our politics, we have a positive idea of Europe, and a positive idea for the ecological transition that is necessary to deliver a sustainable future.

What do YOU think? If there was no EU today, would you invent it? What is the next step for Europe? Do you feel that your voice is heard by politicians? And is it time for a United States of Europe? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

Vote 2014

Voting is closed in our Debating Europe Vote 2014! The results are now in, so come and see what our readers thought!

365 comments Post a commentcomment

  1. avatar
    Mario Martinovic

    No! Let’s not make the same mistake as with the euro. The big states will buy and own the little ones. Croatia already had that in the Yugoslav federation; it doesn’t work!

    The EU is fine as it is, just abolish the euro and bring back national currencies. I live in Holland and I’ve never lived as hard and without optimistic plans as in the last decade since the euro was introduced. Bring back protectionism in the markets and stop neo-liberal capitalism and further globalisation.

    • avatar
      Kroum Balabanov

      It is too early. But look no one is buying Belgium or the Netherlands or Lux. They are small but they are rich and competitive, though even they show slow growth. Mario, I respect Croatia’ negative experiences in Yugoslavia, being dominated by irresponsible Serbia. The point is that the new member states are not equally developed as the North and that naturally creates tension like between metropilies nad colonies. And us, the CESEE countries we are not prepared psychologically to give some much sovereignity away.

    • avatar

      the EU is not fine as it is. and Yugoslavia was never a TRUE federation or confederation. neither was Russia. give a good exemple, like canada or switzerland, instead of looking for false federations to use as na exemple..

    • avatar
      Steve P

      Definately not i want the EU to break up .I would never comply to the United States of Europe rubbish.Im British and always will be .Still we should be out of this rubbish EU soon anyway so good luck.

    • avatar
      dina mism

      why such hatred from the british towards any type of european integration? dont you remembre what Churchill said about a possibility of a United europe decades ago?

    • avatar
      Asim Chilwan

      The United States of America is a successful union of states.

  2. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    Well, I am a strong supporter of a European federation as I believe it is the only way to solve our pitiful national woes. Our countries are captured states of vested interests of local elites, that gained the reins of our states after WW2, one way or another. By the help of foreign elites (USA for example) or by historical traditions. So they became institutions. Time for a political shake up methinks… And what better way to do that than with a European federation?

    We will be have to be careful, though, when we design such a federation. We do not want a centralized government. Greece and Ireland have centralized governments and look where they are now… Also, we should not allow the richer and more powerful states to take the lead… Such “union” should not be for their benefit only. If all states learn to think “post-nationally,” and with the best interest of the whole continent in mind, then it can be achieved.

    We should also make sure that lobbies and multinationals have no greater voice that the interests of the people, thus giving the EP the full power that it needs. Europe should be governed in 3 levels, the European, national and local level.. So for European issues give all power to the elected and accountable to us politicians, not some unelected Euro-crat!

    • avatar
      Kroum Balabanov

      I agree on the necessity of USE, but rather in a longer perspective. The new member countries are not ready for that evn psychologically, they think EU membership was a forced or implicit giveaway of sovereignity on which they did not agree.And they are not ready economically too – they are still middle income countries at best, whereas most of Western Europe are advanced knowledge based economies. Christo, Ireand would have gotten into trouble regardless of the EU, much like Iceland did, because its banks were way too big for a small economy and it is back on track. Greece got into trouble to some extent because of its populist polithea and because of the EU (€ mechanism), by falling into the cheap borrowing trap with the fault of German and French banks too. It would have probably been better to leave the € for 2-3 years, allow the old curency to depreciate and inflate its way out of the crisis – like Italy or Spain or even the UK were doing under the ECU/ mechanism (before the €). I agree it is partly Germany’s fault to support Greece staying in the € zone but imposing to steep/quick austerity program. But I think it would show modest growth next year. So let’s approach the issue step by step, function by function -recover firs, Banking Union next, EFSF/ESM, may be €-bonds, better coord of economic and fiscal policy, more spending in thrifty Germany etc.

    • avatar

      i have always supported that notion. or at least a confederation. but recently as i saw neoliberal thinking from outsider europe taking over the european project – and no one opposed it – maybe the europeans don’t wanna have the intelligence and wisdom to proceed. if they just want to return to past mistakes..

    • avatar

      U already gave all the points speaking against a European Federation in your comment. I would love a world in which “all states learn to think “post-nationally,” and with the best interest of the whole continent in mind, then it (European Federation)can be achieved. Yet I don’t think this is an option in the next 200 years especially with recent political development in Eastern Europe in mind. Maybe we are lucky and humans become more intelligent

  3. avatar

    Of course it is! Divisions always make damages. If European nations want to have an important role in the world, they have to join their forces.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      I would sooner poke my own eyeballs out with a red hot poker ,than be part of this project.Luckily most of the UK thinks the same.

  4. avatar
    Johann Seltmann

    I think, the mistake with the euro is that there is no federal government, which could deal with the crisis. Instead we have got national heads of government, who think only of their national interests but not of the interests of the eurozone or of the EU as a whole.

  5. avatar

    A USE? Hell no. I do not want to pay for French pensions, Romanian welfare or Bulgarian healthcare.

    My answers to the three questions.
    1. no our voice isn’t being hear by politicians. We do not want the undemocratic Eurosoviet Union or its income-tax-exempt Politburo (Barroso’s Commission).

    2. no. Too many people still don’t know the politicians aim to abolish democracy forever. This is what they mean when they refer to the EU ‘project’. The project is the abolishment of democracy and impoverishment of everyone who isn’t a rich elitist, politician or banker.

    3. quite the contrary. I think most people are aware what the undemocratic Eurosoviet Union is about and most politicians have no clue whatsoever but merely vote party-line.

    Democracy and nation-states is the way. This whole ‘post-democracy’ stuff belongs in the trashcan.

    • avatar

      You wouldn’t talk like that if you knew what U.S.E. really is.

    • avatar

      personally i wouldn’t mind paying the pension of any one in Europe. i think europe should finally be a nation.

    • avatar

      because nation-states had such a good effect on europe in the past… if you think the current EU is a soviet-style orgaanization, someone with soe wisdom should want to improve it instead of dismanle it. unless you are a strong believer on the neoliberal ideals, wich are totally anti-european?

    • avatar
      Steve P

      i want the EU to fail massively i have never judged myself as EU citizen ,im British and would fight to keep it so.

    • avatar
      dina mism

      you seem to be stuck in the past with those notions of ‘separated we are stronger, together we are weak’ ..the chinese and russian..and even the arabics will be very happy to see people in europe against any idea of unity. maybe one day when your granchildren will be living in miserably conditions surrouded by balkanization you change your mind

    • avatar
      Philip Ion

      Is that really any different to someone from Yorkshire having their taxes go towards those things for people in London?

    • avatar

      It could be an interesting experiment to lodge power in the hands of the people rather than keep it in the hierarchy of nation states as they have evolved from the many nepotistic unions, and the plight of the many warring factions its peoples have suffered through the last 1,000 years. Why must moderns accept such an antiquated view of their existence, as offered/mandated when they are born?

      Let freedom ring with cultural affection because love and loyalty is where the heart is, not where it is slated/slotted to be. A union of free trade agreements may allow the greatest leverage for independent progress of each nation, popularity and benefits the advantages sought, minimizing the burden of detriments the goal.

  6. avatar

    The travelling United States of Europe exhibition?

    I wonder if the German plans for a United States of Europe (formed in 1940-1942 under the ‘leadership’ of one Reinhard Heydrich) will also be mentioned or conveniently ignored.

    So: United States of Europe? No thank you. I am a dissident. Say no to gleichschaltung, say no to stamping out legislative diversity.

    • avatar
      Anonymous Brit

      You know not once in the history of Europe has a federal Europe been attempted. What the likes of Napoleon and Hitler (to name a couple) wanted was a Europe dominated by their own nations. A federal Europe is a Europe where every citizen gets a vote, we all get a say, we all have our rights as human beings, we all get to speak our own languages, work where we want, go where we want, we could even run to be president if your ambitious enough. There’s no gestapo, no guillotine, no conscription. Diversity isn’t eradicated its encouraged, United in Diversity, out of many one, those would be the mantras of a federal Europe, as they are in the USA. If you really care about this, you should look up how federalism works. Because no one is ignoring what your saying, we all know of what was attempted in the past, but its not a federal Europe. In short,what your saying about the Nazi plan is totally irrelevant in this context.

    • avatar

      if you mention Reinhard Heydrich proposal during nazi germany….i can mention Abbot Charles de Saint-Pierre and this proposal in 1728…..or giuzeppe mazzini. and victor hugo in 1840s….or the proposal of Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1923….or the proposal of Aristide Briand in 1924-30 ….were these also conveniently ignored?

    • avatar
      Steve P

      id sooner fight them than be part of them.I hate everything that the EU stands for ,basically eradicting national identities.

    • avatar
      dina mism

      the plans and desires to unite western europe started much before those plans you mentioned from 1940. that fact seems to be conveniently ignored by you as well.

  7. avatar
    Margaret Richards

    Perhaps to wake up to reality and start calling a spade a spade…..how about listing hezbollah as an islamist terrorist organisation….just for starters? Then get the hell rid of the schengen treaty as it created mayhem in europe….finally stop illegal migration and start closing borders!! I know that euroidiots won’t like what i’ve written but tge EU’s leftist liberal policies just stink!

    • avatar
      Steve P

      I do Margaret bang on.I just hope were out of it soon

  8. avatar

    Democracy and accountability: The European Federation should have one President elected directly by the European citizens. Parliament should consist of one chamber representing the citizens and another chamber representing the states.

    European integration: The European Federation should be initiated from the creation of a federal core composed of EU Member States willing to make a step further in the process of European Integration.

    Employment: A more integrated Europe will allow us to build on our strengths and skills and improve the competitiveness of our economy. This will in turn create more job opportunities, in particular for young people. Increased integration will also help us ensure full mobility of the workforce within the Federation and to preserve the European social model.

    Foreign and defence policy: The European Federation should be competent on issues such as foreign and defence policy. It should have one single army with a single central command, one single diplomatic corps, and a single seat at the United Nations Security Council, representing a common European foreign policy.

    Security: A federal police should be put in place to deal with federal crimes (such as terrorism, organized crime, human traffic and federal taxes evasion). The European Federation should in particular be entitled to manage asylum policy and the control of external borders.

    Public finances: The European Federation should have a European treasury. This treasury should manage a federal budget financed through federally attained resources (such as Eurobonds, European Transaction tax or others). Its currency should be the Euro. At the federal level, a more effective taxation system should be put in place to finance federal expenditure. This system should avoid tax duplications and favour economies of scale, thus reducing the overall tax burden on each European citizen.

    Fiscal harmonization: The EFP will promote tax harmonisation to reduce social dumping and tax evasion within the Federation.

    European Central Bank: The European Central Bank should be kept independent, but should get a double mandate of ensuring low inflation and economic growth together. The ECB should act as a lender of last resort.

    European social model: The European Federation should protect the sustainability of the European social model and ensure that its citizens benefit from comparable civil, political, and economic rights and level of welfare, ensuring fair standards throughout the European Federation.

    Solidarity: The EFP wants to reinforce the European Cohesion policy, focus on key Europe-wide infrastructure networks and a European social relief fund to improve territorial and social cohesion.

    Justice: The role of the European Court of Justice should be reinforced as the heart of the federal judicial system. The second instance will remain in Luxembourg. The first instance should be strengthened by creating additional European federal courts of first instance at a local level, with at least one present in each member state.

    Industrial policy: The European Federation should support European businesses operating in Europe and abroad with an effective federal industrial policy aimed at boosting innovation, increasing harmonisation of industrial rules and conditions across Europe and improving competitiveness.

    Energy policy: The European Federation needs an energy policy that is sustainable and that effectively secures energy access throughout Europe.

    Environment: The EFP believes that sustainable development is the basis for the future of European economic growth and considers environment as public good. The EFP will develop a complete strategy and a comprehensive environmental policy for the European Federation.

    Research and Innovation is a primary source of economic and social development, and should receive stronger support by the European Federation.

    Culture: European culture consists of a rich multitude of local expressions that must be preserved and promoted as a unique treasure and as the common ground of our identity.

    Education: The EFP supports the highest level of education for its citizens, encourages innovation and research and promotes European identity and European mobility through initiatives such as the Erasmus exchange programme and sports exchange programmes.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      What aload of rubbish ,never heard so much drivel. Im glad the British will never conform to this.

  9. avatar
    Frédéric Remouchamps

    About the symbol of the flag and Georges Washington in the center of the European Stars.. does it mean symbolicly that in the proposed scenario Europe would be controled by the USA ?

    • avatar

      i really hope not. but i suppose in the end its going to be either USA or china controlling everything.

  10. avatar

    I am a believer in the European project – which is not, as Marcel wold have us believe, about abolishing democracy and impoverishing the people. Rather the contrary, the integration project has been highly succesful – agreed, with US help in the beginning – to abolish war, consolidate democracy and promote prosperity in Europe. This development should continue and the only way forward is to establish a true European federation, with the Commission as a government and the Council and Parliament as the pinnacle of bicameral democracy. However, this does not mean that the EU should be a centralised nation-state. For one, harmonising all national systems would take forever and be hihgly inefficient. Rather, the EU should become a flexible federation that supports national systems, but which has clear legal superiority over those systems in the areas for which it is competent. Democratic legitimacy, which one must admit is the Achilles heel of the Union, cannot be legally constructed, but has to be earned, and in order to do so we must give the Union more tools to work with and prove its added value.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      Gilles it is all about abolishing democracy and the integration of peoples most certainly has not worked well in the UK.It has caused nothing but hatred and hostilities towards all other EU citizens that have come to scrounge our benefits and steal jobs .They have also driven wages down massively.The Pro- EU people will say otherwise but it simple is not true.Get Britain Out.

  11. avatar
    Paul Galbally

    Its time to start working toward a European Confederation centered on the Eurozone, the current intergovernmental model has reached the limit of its mandate in my opinion. Let the countries who wish to opt out leave, and those that want to remain should work toward a more workable and accountable system of shared governance.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      Agreed let us get the hell out.

    • avatar
      dina mism

      i agree. the intergovernamental model – that replaced the communitary model in the lisbon treaty (wich was better, even with great dificulties) – should be abandoned and europe should advance to the next step, leaving the nations wich think like britain out of it, at least for now

    • avatar
      dina mism

      i agree. the intergovernamental model – that replaced the communitary model – should be abandoned and europe should advance to the next step, leaving the nations wich think like britain out of it

    • avatar
      dina mism

      i agree. the intergovernamental model – – should be abandoned and europe should advance to the next step, leaving the nations like britain out

  12. avatar
    Marco Tipaldi

    more Europe of citizens! and not of lobbies! if we’ll continue to defend the lobbies of big financial institution, better collapsing!

    • avatar
      Steve P

      Dina Britain would be more than happy to be left out thanks,in fact most of us would like you to kick us out

    • avatar
      Kroum Balabanov

      Not necessarily, Grażyna, we still might develop its civilized Scandinavian or German version and yet still be competitive. I agree that copypasting the US model would be suitable for Europe.

  13. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    That would be the ideal but…no…not YET.
    There isn’t the will yet, the mentality is too…selfish. There’s also this general feeling that “i am paying for…*insert specific country* ‘s benefits/wellfare” which clearly means the EU is not even widely understood and its mechanisms aren’t understood either.
    Furthermore Brussels seems to go a bit too over the head of the people’s voice. True, Europe’s population is angry and frustrated and may not think always rationally, but some decisions of the Comission really made me wonder what were they thinking.

    For the time being i say more integration so we can get our house in order, solve this issue with Britain so we can stop being hampered at every turn and cull the right-wing fringe elements that seem to be pouring out of the wood works.

    I am romanian and no, Marcel, you are not “paying for my wellfare”, i am an entrpreneur, i own my own business and don’t need your “hand outs”, thank you very much.
    It’s nice to see though your xenophobia and hatred of other EU members.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      Marcels right,but hopefully the issue with Britain will be gone ,as we will have left adios.

    • avatar
      dina mism

      unfortunately, if we wait until the mentality changes, it will never happen

  14. avatar

    Way back on the 7th May 1953, not long after the second World War, the UK House of Lords debated “World Federation”. And here you are asking “Is it time for a United States of Europe”. Facts. The people see that they are voting and paying their own Politicians to govern their own Countries, they vote and pay them with fantastic wages and expenses, yet all we see them doing is obeying EU orders like the rest of us are doing.
    Ever since the EU Embraced the 16 Mediterranean partner countries from North Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. How many of those states has suffered terrible was, only they are not called “wars”, for we know it as the Arab Spring, with leaders of those Country now removed one way or another. The European Neighbourhood Policy was first proposed by the Commission in 2003-2004 as a framework policy through which an enlarged EU could strengthen and deepen relations with its 16 closest neighbours. (Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine) with a view to counteracting risks of marginalisation for the neighbouring countries which had not participated in the historic 2004 enlargement and therefore ensuring the strengthening of a shared area of prosperity, stability and security. (From Commission Communication: A new response to a changing Neighbourhood . Foreign and Commonwealth Office 20, June 2011 European Council). And YOU are asking the question above! We want out of this European Union for the people of these once independent Country’s cannot afford to continue paying billions of their money to the EU as well as continue to pay their own Politicians to allegedly govern the people, in the UK’s case-according to its Constitution, and here in the UK, to destroy their own Constitution ’tis treason.

  15. avatar
    Lamai Saimir

    there are certain people who react unnecessarily. They consider that their role is to be the priests of the history. The (political) reason for existence is to remind us that yesterday was better than today and will definitely be better than tomorrow. Let us not be affected by extreme conservative. They are not aware about the mechanisms of history. They have no intention to take its lesson. Or rather know all this and ensconced as they are they feel the need to defend a world that is long gone: that of nation state. But these played their part in history. Let us take up the baton and to proceed to a social and political union. This of course can be done if and only if the European Union ceased to be an industry association and transformed into a people’s Europe.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      I can promise you this Britain will never be part of that

  16. avatar
    Mihalis Pillos

    United States of Europe is the only way to survive as Europeans in the years to come… Europeans are less than 800 mil. That means about 10% of the worlds population! If we want to survive we need to amalgamate knowledge, philosophy, wealth and vision in one United State!

  17. avatar

    A question I want YOU to answer. Just how many Country’s in the EU are on the border-line of “BROKE” through paying their billions to the EU over all these years and paying their own Politicians?

  18. avatar

    Anne you seem very obsessed with this idea of “paying the politicians” as a cause for the financial trouble of nation states.
    Give your argument, a United States of Europe project is quite beneficial because the number of Federal Leaders cannot be as high as the current nation state political apparatus.

    • avatar

      I have been in a full scale WAR. Now WHO would be Presendent of that United States of Europe EH? The people of the United Kingdom have to be FREE-Free from foreign Rule and free to Govern themselves “ACCORDING TO LAW”. We are indeed an island nation and always will be-we are not and never can be part of the Continent.

  19. avatar
    Antonio Leanza


    • avatar
      Steve P


    • avatar

      “NO NO NO,NEVER NEVER NEVER” ?! why, do you prefer that europeans should have no future in europe?

  20. avatar
    Cris Hova

    as long as there are people like Margaret Richards who are more than euroskeptics, the United States of Europe is nothing more than an idea, an utopia..The same is valid for all the leaders of european countries, from european institutions,etc.

  21. avatar
    Jakub Zelazny

    @Cris, you the one who’s eurosceptic here, because you want to destroy the fundaments our wealth is based on- free trade between souvereign states, rivalry on every field- from philosophy to science, learning from effects of each others decisions and so on. Its diversity of ideas and policies got us where we are now, and its the same with USA- todays centralized state is just a heir of wealth created by decentralized state. If you cant see this than youre a tool in hands of politicians who want citizens to have no influence on their actions, just like it is today in the United States. Yes, its very nice to have political power over vast territory, but only for politicians, you and me my friend, have no interest in it at all.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      Jakub and you think were we are now is good do you,because i can tell you now the people most certainly dont.All we see is massive expense with no real benefit,if any at all.The sooner the EU breaks up the better because only countries who benefit are them with weak economies,which is wrong on other countries.

  22. avatar
    Jakub Zelazny

    You guys seem to be blinded to the extreme by empty slogans, cuz from whats going on its pretty obvious for every sane being that putting all european countires under one cap makes no economical sense at all.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      Well said that man

  23. avatar

    Ah! At last, Lucília Gonçalves has said it ALL for me.
    Goodbye, Arrivederci, Gia sas, Hasta Luego, Adjö, Näkemiin,
    Farvel, Dag, Au revior, Até logo, and Auf Wiedersehen,
    N’est pas vraiment, C’est un horreur,
    Arrividerci———————until tomorreur!!!!

  24. avatar
    Cristian Dinescu

    Viviane is an idiot in his own expertise, Justice, how could she understand simple thinks like the impossibility to create a new identity, The European, on a continent full of CONSOLIDATED TRADITIONAL NATIONS??? It was possible in America where the refugees and criminals who devastated the local societies NEEDED a new and legal identity, how could that be done in Europe? The EU project was captured by a bunch of pure idiots, like this lady.

  25. avatar
    Cristian Dinescu

    The next step is to dismantle all the EU superstructures except the federal parliament, their agreements only to become laws in EU. And have a Twin Currency financial system.

  26. avatar
    Ricardo Costa Silva

    Call European Union or United States of Europe is not all that matters in this process. the construction of this Union has always been made based on democracy, and it should continue. I only see success in this step if you give voice to the European people to choose their leaders and political destiny. The common history of Europe has proven that separate states does not work. Let’s be a union, because together we are an axis of prominence in the world.

    • avatar
      Steve P

      No lets not be a union,i certainly have no wish for this thank you. Im British and always will be,nothing else.Thankfully im in the vast majority on this in Britain.I also feel many European states feel the same.

  27. avatar
    Paul X

    Cohn-Bendit respose?
    “if you look historically, nation states themselves have only existed for more-or-less 150 years. And fully democratic nations have really only existed for half of that”

    He obviously didn’t take history at school? With idiots like him making statements like that just what hope is there ?

    “French President François Hollande called for “economic government” in the eurozone. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also predicted a “political union” for Europe, with the EU Commission serving as the “government” of Europe”

    And when exactly are these self important power hungry individuals going to consider what the public that elects them want?, certainly in the UK there was no mention of political union when we were last asked what we thought about the EEC back in the 1970’s

    • avatar
      Kroum Balabanov

      I agree, Paul, about the ref in 1975. But the UK is not in the € zone for exactly the reason you state – because it is not convinced centralized decisions serve its interests. Whatever the future there would have to be an option for “opting out” and event of selecting to not “opt in” in a federal or even a confederate structure and still be a member of the EU. As I wrote earlier, in the debate over the Ukraine, the new member countries are less developed (middle income vs the advanced knowledge based economies of the North) and not even psychologically ready for such a breakthrough. I like the concept of USE, in fact I am convinced it is a path for us, but it is a very long shot. The US had their Civil War over competencies of the Federal Govt and the States. We cannot afford to repeat it.

  28. avatar

    “If all states learn to think “post-nationally,” and with the best interest of the whole continent in mind, then it can be achieved.”

    Christos, I am afraid but “post-nationally” is just a false ideology. “Post-national” in practice (e.g. EU) looks very much like pre-national empires. For the public this regression is difficult to recognize because of our more progressed level of technological and economic development.
    Like the old empires and later the SU, Yugoslavia etc. “post-national” is undemocratic and ruled by “aristocratic estates”, this time international bureaucrats, global plutocrates, and politicians lacking legitimacy.

    Having said this, I fully embrace the idea of European cooperation – I do practice this extensively in my ownl life – , but based on sovereign and democratic nation states. Ten years ago I was still thinking differently but the experience with the Maastricht EU has changed my mind.
    Nations obviously are and will remain the most reasonable “organic actors” of mankind. The EU should adapt to this insight and return to the idea of “network state” instead of pursuing Barroso’s “non-imperial empire”.

  29. avatar
    Jakub Zelazny

    ‘the construction of this Union has always been made based on democracy’
    The fundament of democracy is legislative initiative in hands of people or their representatives. Do you or your representative have that power? Then how can you speak of democracy? Do you even understand that term?
    Click the link i posted above, look closer at legislative process, remind yourself membership referendums etc etc..except for empty slogans, EU has nothing to do with democracy.

  30. avatar

    “I wonder if the German plans for a United States of Europe (formed in 1940-1942 under the ‘leadership’ of one Reinhard Heydrich) will also be mentioned or conveniently ignored.”

    Marcel, I don’t know if you have read what you quoted but what is in “Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (European Economic Community” (1942) by Third Reich economists and ministers resembles much more to what UKIP is propagating today than to the level of integration the real EU has already reached.

    For example, a common currency was explicitely excluded with the argument of too different level of economic development between the nations of Europe.

    Just for the records, Heydrich is neither an author nor mentioned otherwise in this publication.

  31. avatar
    Catalin Vasile

    I do not want an U.S.E. for I see and I feel the so called “democracy” of the false politicians that rule the E.U. without being elected by citizens but electing themselves! The presetn E.U. look more and more alike thye former U.S.S.R.!!! I come from a country that escaped from the communist dictatorship nightmarre just 20 years ago and still have to fight hard with our politicians who continue to act like communist party activists! What those in charge in E.U. do is not different of the bolshevics did in my country and anywhere else in the countries of the communist world. Day by day I get the proof that we are being led to an E.U.S.S.R., where the leaders become our masters and they impose to us their opinions and their beliefs and the DEMOCRACY and freedom of speech are the main enemies of the state! I don’t want to be a part of an artificial superstate that steps on the bodies of true citizens and that points me and my compatriots as savage gipsies who live in caves or in treehouses!

  32. avatar
    Cristian Dinescu

    Ricardo, what union are you dreaming at, EUSSR, 4th REICH or People’s Republic of Europe as Maoist Barroso wants?

  33. avatar
    European Federalist Party

    That is clear. We need to move towards the United States of Europe to manage today’s global and domestic challenges. We need a federation giving European citizens the power to decide for real what happens in Europe.

    Austerity or growth, this is what is at stake!

    This is OUR future. Let’s get it back!

    Pietro De Matteis, PhD (Cambridge)
    European Federalist Party

    E-mail: pietro.dematteis@federalistparty.eu
    Website: http://www.federalistparty.eu
    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/EuropeanFederalistParty

    • avatar
      Steve P

      I think not my friend ,this will never happen.The UK for one will not conform to this and hopefully we will be out of the EU soon anyway .If we dont i see an outbreak of violence if we dont.The EU federalist idea is dead just deal with it and let sovereign countries regain there own independence from this corrupt,joke of a cult.

  34. avatar

    No, E.U.S.S.R.! Iwant a reformed E.U. where the citizens have the power and everyone is elected not appointed from a select groups of “smart people” who have nothing in common with democracy or public interest and the wellbeing of the citizens!
    I do not want an U.S.E. for I see and I feel the so called “democracy” of the false politicians that rule the E.U. without being elected by citizens but electing themselves! The presetn E.U. look more and more alike thye former U.S.S.R.!!! I come from a country that escaped from the communist dictatorship nightmarre just 20 years ago and still have to fight hard with our politicians who continue to act like communist party activists! What those in charge in E.U. do is not different of the bolshevics did in my country and anywhere else in the countries of the communist world. Day by day I get the proof that we are being led to an E.U.S.S.R., where the leaders become our masters and they impose to us their opinions and their beliefs and the DEMOCRACY and freedom of speech are the main enemies of the state! I don’t want to be a part of an artificial superstate that steps on the bodies of true citizens and that points me and my compatriots as savage gipsies who live in caves or in treehouses!

  35. avatar
    Spyros Tsakos

    To move on a federation we must first change the democratic system. The consultation model would be ideal but also it would need time in order to organize this model and most of all the average citizen have to change his/her way of thinking about decision making(that means learning to participate in it and not leaving governments and politicians to have their way after taking his/her vote, that is called democratic control). It would be most beneficial in a federal Europe as citizens would have a say on decisions that affect all Europe and especially the common needs of all Europeans(or at least those who would be in the federation), it would preserve the independence of each community and nation but most of all it would create a decentralized federal government. But as i said this will take time as the reforms that are needed(firstly in democratic and social level and secondly in the economic one) are many and significant(board and many that one could write whole books for each one, don’t you agree?). Anyway the first little steps has begun, even in this period, but a lot more would be needed, Europe ought to be a real Union if we want to stand strong and together in the modern world.

  36. avatar
    Luna Galimberti

    Personally, I think that Europe should work in a more cosmopolitan view, as a large – central – apparatus that collects all the ideas and projects of each Countries but, at the same time, it has to follow a common line, giving the directives and acting like a great, single power.
    I think this is the way, mostly looking at Globalization in several respects, that we could make Europe more competitive and, at the same time, we can work better on the internal problems (of the individual States and of the European institutions, too) as a single body which needs all its parts to work together and to be in good health.
    Maybe we shouldn’t just follow old examples of others “united states” (like Usa or URSS)…maybe we might just create a new model, which we can adjust: a model based on history, progress and adaptable to any kind of situation.
    If we are too busy in fighting each other (like we are doing now), the only result will be a loss of possibilities. Also, the other Countries keep taking advantage of our problems and European citizens will only worsen their living conditions as we diminish our international’s political weight.

  37. avatar
    Андони Андреев

    Long live the European Union! Long live the European Federation!
    In my opinion, the European union is the best political project ever created in the history of mankind! In the first half of the XXth century the peoples of Europe saw the horror of two world wars, and in the second half – The Cold War and The Iron Curtain… Who could imagine that in the XXI century, Europe would be united..?
    The european unification must continue – I want one day to see how the political project, called European Union, becomes a single united political unit. A political unit, with its own place and influence in the World!

  38. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    @Bastian, when I am speaking of a “post-national” Europe, I do not mean a “nationless” one, rather a Europe with no “national” governments… We are not trying to make all European nations as one “mass”, rather to stop following “national” politics and politicians, or at least only them.. Europe should be governed in three levels.. European, national and local… So all we have to do is weaken the national and empower the European and local ones… Nations will still exist, but their politics won’t be solely “national” anymore, rather more mixed and interdependent!! With local groups, minorities and a broader European one… That’s all…

  39. avatar
    J Mcloed

    What do statements like “a positive idea for the ecological transition that is necessary to deliver a sustainable future”,actually mean in reality ?, in a recent manifesto Cohn-Bendit(read him in his own words,link is below and ask yourself would you trust this man with anything ?) and Guy Verhofstadt called for a European Empire that would have”Institutions with the tools to really enforce the implementation of the rules of the game, without member states impeding them”,total control for the EU in other words.Funny that,first it’s a Common Market,then it’s a Federation and now an Empire,“the most powerful and wealthiest continent in the world, richer than America, more powerful than all of the new empires combined.”
    What does it all mean,it might be the greatest empire for some and most have already booked their places on the Gravy Train in Brussels but for the rest of Europe it will mean massive redistribution of wealth and energy .
    They also want to actively export’ democracy’ by force if need be,that’s why both Cohn Bendit and Verhofstadt support intervention in Libya and Syria.
    Morsi was grinning like a wolf when Ashton dropped by with 6 and half billion Euros.Apparently he’s not too keen to have to implement womens rights as a condition for receipt of the ‘aid’,seems it would undermine Islam.

    The hypocrisy of people like Cohn-Bendit,Verhofstadt and the unelected Baroness Catherine “Europe and the Arab world share a common history and a common destiny” Ashton waltzing around the world preaching democracy and transparent institutions when the EU hasn’t been properly audited for nearly 20 years and is itself “anti-democratic” is quite astonishing .
    “Daniel Guéguen, a lobbyist and lecturer at the College of Europe,the preparatory school for the Brussels civil service – believes the European Union has become fundamentally anti-democratic. …………..European Commission officials – have been given the freedom to make key decisions acting alone and without any democratic oversight.
    When Eurosceptics say that the EU has been hijacked by an unaccountable civil service, by the commission desk officers, they are correct, says Guéguen.”
    EurIslam according to the Network of European Foundations is but a “mere pawn” ,however there is “an Islamic problem,
    of which mosques have become the symbol and the most visible symptom. But the problem of Islam, in turn, is actually a problem of plurality and of pluralization as a process, which will have an impact on the very concept of the nation‑state ”
    Peter Sutherland chief of UN migration has said the EU should be actively undermining the homogenity of European cultures(what is that if not anti European ?) he holds up Sweden as an example of integration(that’s really working out well Pete) and “European countries must finally and honestly acknowledge that, like the United States, Canada, and Australia, they are lands of immigrants.”Funny that he also says multiculturalisation is an economic necessity,so why isn’t he promoting it in Somalia,Pakistan,Jordan or Bangladesh ? and last year, “during the Arab revolutions, the EU missed a historic opportunity to begin weaving together the two sides of the Mediterranean”.
    What could we call the finished ‘knitwear’,Eurabian ?
    So in short,the EU wants to become the greatest empire ever,solve the pension problem with the biggest migration in history,establish EurIslam,merge more closely with the Middle East and North Africa .Depending on which EU think-tank or policy suggestions one reads,we’ll need 20,30 or 100 million more immigrants……Oh and export EU ‘democracy’ by force if need be.
    What could possibly go wrong ?

  40. avatar
    Robert Santa

    Perhaps. But the idea is sooo unpopular now that it will never come to pass. Europe has shown a distinct lack of leadership (at all levels). So there is no guarantee that any USE will, in fact, be functional.

  41. avatar

    Oh boy, let’s not listen too much to the media and think by ourselves: What might be the advantages of dozens of national or, worse, somehow “ethno”-selective organisations of our societies? Well, I can’t think of so many of our recent challenges like a just income distribution, access to education, climate change adaption, immigrant integration, social security, traffic, militair, foreign representation etc, etc to be solved by german, french or british governments or something alike. Off course, subsidiarity suggests efficiency – but should we exaggerate?
    Personally, I do not understand nationalists of any kind. So, move on, USE :-)

  42. avatar
    Pedro Celestino

    What would be these union? Lobbies, corporations and banks at a even bigger scale, no thanks.

    I could agree in a union IF PEOPLE COULD VOTE THE LAWS AND ACTIONS, either by direct vote whenever they want or petition or even other models, not abolishing representative democracy but complementing it.

    Then we could have a general law (human right, education, labor…) equal for every European country and equal for every European, but (the hard part) we still need to let local power to have impact on how things happens at the local scale.

    Anyway at the short term it is easy to improve EU without any federation. Stop dealing with slave countries and knock off big banks and corporations back to their proper place, as most of todays politicians are criminal who are in power to steal and even kill by famine or despair mandated by those.

  43. avatar
    George Yiannitsiotis

    United States of Europe?
    What a tall story! except if one means United Usurers of Europe.
    As far as I am concerned, I would rather strike a deal with Turkey than consent to a german-centric empire characterized by centralization of power, oligarchy as political regime, suppression of opposing political opinion, deprivation of basic human rights including the right to private property and proper job for the poor periphery etc…
    As citizen of the Hellenic Republic where DEMOCRACY was contemplated25centuries ago, I prefer the Icelandic path to LIBERTY, DIGNITY, DEMOCRACY and HUMAN RIGHTS; not the West European Usurers Corporation dominated by the 4th Reich.-

  44. avatar
    Matt Dovey

    Why do you think that the majority of the people of europe even want a united states of europe. I for one don’t. I’ve never heard except on pages such as this a call for such a thing. Look at the popularity ratings for the EU across europe and think to yourselves who really wants this.
    I don’t want it,cant see the point of it.

  45. avatar

    “… when I am speaking of a “post-national” Europe, I do not mean a “nationless” one, rather a Europe with no “national” governments…”

    I do understand that you are disappointed with the capabilities of
    the Greek government, but if you deprive the nations of their states and key
    elements of sovereignty you set them back to the pre-national era with the associated submission to imperial bureaucracies and decision makers. The difference between a Habsburg, Ottoman or Russian Empire and the EU is only on the surface.
    Instead I imagine the EU as a “network state” where the power of decisionmaking remains with democratically legitimated national governments. And when I say “democratic”, I rather think of Switzerland than of the USA.
    Nations which out of different reasons cannot or do not wish to follow a particular common EU policy should simply stay away (e.g. Schengen).

    The attempt to forcefully centralizing the EU is already damaging microstructures in member states (e.g. education, social cohesion) to an extent which leaves a bleak outlook for the European people.

  46. avatar
    eusebio manuel vestias pecurto

    Esta na hora de uma mudança dentro da Europa eu também sou da mesma opinião de muitos cometadores uma Europa renovada e de modelo dos Estados Unidos da Europa e isso só será possivel com uma forte aliança de todos os estados membros da UE porque é vital para desenvolverem uma estratégia Europeia e verdadeiramente coletiva e é essa ambição que esta a fazer falta á europa

  47. avatar
    Mathias Darmell

    European integration have out grown EU intergouvermentalism. Europe needs to move forward and strengthen the political and democratic integration. The natural step for Europe is a federation .

  48. avatar
    Nikolai Holmov

    A United States of Europe?
    A confederation or a federation? Two distinctly separate things.
    Parliamentary run with a President as head of “state” with no power, limited power or a lot of power? (Remember if the president is directly elected across the entire EU, he/she will possibly be the only politicians that could claim a “state-wide” mandate, as MEPs would remain nationally elected – and the personalisation of power is not necessarily a good thing.)
    Does the EU even need a president (and if so, does it need to be anything other than a nominal/ceremonial figurehead?)
    Above all, given the very serious lack of legitimacy the EU and EU hierarchy seems to have across the EU geographical area amongst its internal population, how goes the effort to convince the population it is deserving of their support in forming either a confederation or a federation?

  49. avatar

    The EU of 27 Nation States will soon be enlarged by at least two or three more once free nation states. Plus and we must not forget that the EU embraced 16 Southern Mediterranean States. , “The Arab Spring” REMEMBER? T’was in various Newspapers, just a wee mention here and there, so I will go along with that one for now, unless, as Mr Micawber might have said-“until some-thing else turns up.” So, the first programme on this matter as you can see is known as the Arab Spring, “SPRING”, (“Support for Partnership, Reform, and Inclusive Growth.”) The European Neighbourhood Policy was first proposed by the Commission in 2003-2004 as a framework policy through which an enlarged EU could strengthen and deepen relations with its 16 closest neighbours. (Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine) Remember? How many of those States have had the Heads of those States changed now? Syria is the latest one in the line of being changed of couse. All in the name of ‘Peace in our time’?
    Many previous entries seem to want a United States of Europe and some perhaps would just like one State of Europe, but they ALL forget the people in those STATES for without doubt they cannot possibly continue to pay or contribute to, through their taxes for National Governments and Parliament that can no longer Govern their own Country’s according to their own Constitutions, can they? Especially now that most Country’s are like us now that have the additional layer of Governance via the REGIONS so recently set up here in the UK. Especially as the EU’s Committee of the REGIONS are ready and able to Govern each once nation State directly. Quite simply, the people have not had a SAY on any of these changes-at least, not here in the UK-and each country seems so strapped for cash, they cannot afford this Extra Layer of Goivernance, so, one or the other must go. Question is, WHICH?

  50. avatar
    Alberto Buttini

    United States of Europe? La grande domanda… e la risposta è un semplice flebilissimo Sì… Le politiche nazionali a cosa hanno portato? All’aumento di CO2, alle guerre, alla povertà, alla corruzione, alla non centralità dell’Europa nel mondo… L’Europa rappresenta un Eldorado, un nuovo inizio per costruire un mondo migliore… Let’s try it!

  51. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    I only had to read the first five comments to realize how far off this idea is. The English woman starts complaining about the Schengen treaty (which her country is not a member of, but why let facts get in the way of some good old fashion nationalist ranting?) the frenchmen starts complaining about USA domination, the Czech and the Portugese are against and for respectively, and then it hits me. Clearly there is no common body politic, which is why a US of E is not possible at this time. The USA has differences in regional politics between the east coast, midwestern states, the South, the Rocky Mountain states and the West Coast, but nowhere near as many as this. I would say there are a few more steps before this step.

  52. avatar
    Igor Caldeira

    What does federalism mean?
    That is the question. :-) Are we talking about integration of power, or of democratization of procedures?

  53. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    “Ricardo, what union are you dreaming at, EUSSR, 4th REICH or People’s Republic of Europe as Maoist Barroso wants?”

    Amice trebuie sa nu te mai uiti pe blogurile ultra-nationaliste ca spui numai aiureli si ne faci tara de ras.

  54. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    The reason why i think it’s too soon to move towards an USE model now is the concentration of power.
    And the fact there are 15,000 lobbyists for corporate interest in Brussels right now.
    We know these people make the real rules in the USA, question is do we want them to dictate the rules here?

  55. avatar
    Nikolai Holmov

    Further to my comment above regarding a directly elected president for a United States of Europe (be it federal or confederation) and the issues of personalisation of power by way of being probably the only politician with a mandate from th entire geographical EU area – should such a thing actually happen, how do we insure they are genuinely popular?
    If they are from one of the nations with a large population and are backed by only one or two neighbouring nations with large populations and that would be enough to carry them over the line? – Are they representational of the EU constituency as a whole?
    Would there be a need to insure any successful directly elected presidential candidate got at least x% of the vote in x% of member states to insure a broad regional legitimate base?
    There would surely be a need to remove identity politics from a direct EU presidential election somehow.
    The alternative vote? A system that may install nobodies first choice but maybe those who sit 3rd or 4th on everyones ballot will win because they pick up enough votes from the “Meh – not who I want but I have to give them a score on the ticket” vote?
    Would a system where any presidential candidate needing at least 10% of the vote in at least 60% of the member states then make them seen as legitimately representative of th EU people via some form of broad geographical power base?
    Can the European Commission, European Council and European Parliament even agree on a system to directly elect a president?
    A federal Europe with a directly elected president seems a very, very long way away to me.
    A European confederation is probably a much easier to achieve.
    As it is now, the EU is neither confederation nor federation and I am not sure it needs a directly elected president until it becomes one or the other.

  56. avatar
    Bobby Gerasimov

    For me a USE, in whatever form, is our only way forward. In the USA there are also richer and poorer states, yet we’ve never heard that California needs to “save” or “bailout” Idaho, or whatever. Anyway, I find nationalism so barbaric, tribal and outdated. We recognise that we are all human and nationality only separates us. So what if you come from the land of Shakespeare, Plato, Goethe or Dostoyevsky, or if you eat paella, croissants or tzatziki – doesn’t make you any better than anyone else.

  57. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    @Bastian.. But I do not “forcibly want to centralize” European government. Read my comment correctly.. I said that the national governments should be weaken but the LOCAL and the European should get more power..Not just the European, that would mean exactly what you are saying, centralization.. A Europe of regions… In an empire, one race or ethnicity rules or is more dominant.In the Ottoman were the Turks, in the Roman the Romans, in the Austro-Hungarian, well the name says it… Who will be ruling the EU?

  58. avatar

    Ricardo Costa Silva, the EU (Eurosoviet Union) has never been based on democracy. It has in fact always been based on the idea of abolishing democracy, and if that isn’t possible to at the very least render it ineffective by transferring powers to the Eurosoviet Politburo (Commission) and the phony ‘parliament’ (Eurosoviet Duma) which is neither democratically elected nor an actual parliament.

    Monnet himself was a sworn enemy of democracy, read his biography, if you can read between the lines the contempt for ordinary people in this man’s life is clear.

  59. avatar

    I always love it when some people gloat about how when certain countries would leave, how the rest (the ‘core’) would then be free to go ahead with their utopian plans.

    The flaw is this: those that leave would be better off. The Eurosoviet would struggle even more without us and they know it which is why they are desperate to keep us in and Britain too. After all, who will they get to cover the loss of our net contribution? France?

    Oh, and trade isn’t an EU benefit. Trade would exist even if the Eurosoviet didn’t.

  60. avatar

    RE Monnet above. “ECONOMIC UNITY AND POLITICAL UNITY IN EUROPE” AN INTERVIEW GIVEN BY JEAN MONNET. Document Number 3064/60. (In other words 1960)
    Questioner. 1) The fundamental role which you played in the declaration of May 9, is well known. What aims did you set yourself at that time?

    Reply (by Monnet), One has to remember where we were in 1950. It was only five years after the war, and the misfortunes which Europe had gone through were still there for all to see. For Europe to rise again, it was essential to end Franco-German rivalry and, moreover, to create the conditions of large-scale production which would enable the Europeans to improve their living standards.
    That was why on May 9, 1950, H Schuman proposed the establishment of a common market of 160 million consumers which would bring Europe into the age of continental groups which we live in.
    The proposal of May 9 limited this common market to coal and steel. The first task was to make war impossible and to prove that a pooling of economies was possible. In addition, for countries to be genuinely united in a single market, they had to accept that the same rules be applied for all and that common institutions administer these rules in the general interest. These institutions have been a fundamental principle of all the recent developments in European unity. This is indeed the process of civilisation itself: peoples long separated by history cannot succeed in uniting unless they create a common interest expressed by common forms of government.
    Question. 3) Do the aims of European political integration, which were set out in 1950, remain valid today?
    Reply. The objective remains the same: to bring together countries long divided, in a United States of Europe. But, as we advance towards the creation of this union, the prospects widen, and new possibilities arise. The building in Europe of a Community open to all constitutes the main leaven of evolution in the Western world. Its success is prompting Britain to draw closer to it. To realise this you only have to read the reactions of the British press, and also those of Trade Unions, in recent weeks to the proposals for acceleration of the Common Market.
    As for America, the prospect of the Common Market has brought to a close the post-war period in which aid was a one-way movement with the Americans always at the giving end. You know the moment a joint organisation is coming into being in which America will take part on the same basis as the European countries. This joint organisation opens vast new prospects of Western policies in line with global requirements. I am thinking of the economic expansion of the countries of the free world. I am also thinking of the aid to be granted to under-developed countries which aspire to the benefits of modern civilisation and, beyond that, to a modus vivendi with the Eastern bloc which could, little by little, become the outline of a new world equilibrium. In all this, the dynamism of a Europe on the road to unification, acting as the driving power of the West, will be a major force for progress.
    Question 4) Which way seems to you the best to achieve a United States of Europe?
    Reply. The feature of the progress made so far in uniting Europe has been the step-by-step advance by means of concrete measures bringing solutions to problems as and when they have arisen. THERE IS MORE OF COURSE.

  61. avatar

    @ Christos
    To strengthen the regions is important but to put regions politically in place of nation states will weaken both and automatically strengthen the imperial centre (Brussels). Just think about hundreds of European regions playing against each other compared with 28 nations now.
    Empires always ruled by dividing the whole in small pieces – divide et impera. The talk about regional Europe has a long history among enemies of the nations.

    However, in reality the opposite is taking place. The regions, particularly in the EU periphery, are getting weaker and weaker. Look at the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and so on. Whoever can is abandoning EU’s peripheric regions. The “big is good policy” of the EU is part of the problem.
    The talk about “regional Europe” is not for stregthening the regions but to weaken the nations.

  62. avatar


    “Who will be ruling the EU?”

    Who is ruling the EU today? This is not easy to recognize due to the distance of “Brussels” to the people on the street. What everybody can recognice, however, is that EU countries resemble more US-America than ever before. If I open my daily paper it reads like one from LA. There is much more in it about the US than about neighbouring EU countries. On the last page are, of course, all the celebrities from LA. Then when I look into key EU projects, like GALILEO, SWIFT, defence, election of EC president van Rompuy … in all major EU policies I find US interests go first.
    For the time being those on top of the EU appear to me like being at least mentally Anglo-US Janissaries.
    This might change in the future in case the EU enlarges with Turkey or Russia. Turkey will be the larges nation in the EU with a strong own will (which, for example, Germany is lacking). Then the Anglo “ethnicity” might loose its grip on the EU. But do you want this? Greece back to 1825.

  63. avatar

    We demand the federal structure of the European Union on the basis of a federal state. We reject any form of unitarism and centralism. We also reject any form within the European international organization that is, in fact, disguised disintegration of Europe. We perform on the personality of the state of each Member State forming part of a European Federation. We speak to the democratic structure of the European Union, and therefore we reject all forms within the European international organizations. The European Federal State is the guarantor of the democratic structures of the federation.

    We are federalists from the belief and experience. We reject separatism and particularism pointless national states in Europe. In our opinion they are the seed of nationalism nations of Europe and a great field to work populists. We remember the times of the greatest human savagery that emerged clearly during the Second World War and the civil war in Bosnia. Therefore, we want to build the European Federation which is the guarantor of peace and development of the peoples of Europe in a spirit of mutual respect and love.

    In our federalism is the only form of life with which the European Union can recover from the economic crisis. How long existed Iron Curtain dividing Europe into two hostile political and military blocs, as long true federalism in Europe was virtually impossible. Only now we have a clear path to build a truly federal structure THE EUROPEAN UNION.

    Therefore, we claim we report the European Union as a federal state and economic whole. Only if we can maintain and deepen the integration of the European Union, the young generation will be able to learn to understand the idea of ​​peace, democracy and the federation of Europe, not as a result of the agreement estabishments and political elite, but as a deliberately chosen a necessity. Only then Federal Europe will be able to successfully lead the fight against all forms of nationalism and the revival of particularism among the peoples of Europe. I only European Federation will be a significant factor in international politics and the global economy.

  64. avatar

    It won’t matter to us in the UK who will be ruling the EU, because we may well be out of it by then. You see the people are using the General Election in 2015 (Especially as each five year term of “Office” was put into law) I repeat, using the General Election in 2015 as the REFERENDOM on an “IN” or “OUT” of the EU the people have been denied since 1972/3. All those in UKIP should stand of course because they will not be required in the EU Parliament after, will they!

  65. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    “I always love it when some people gloat about how when certain countries would leave, how the rest (the ‘core’) would then be free to go ahead with their utopian plans.
    The flaw is this: those that leave would be better off. ”

    The flaw that you will “be better off” applies to you too.

    “Oh, and trade isn’t an EU benefit. Trade would exist even if the Eurosoviet didn’t.”
    With tariffs imposed by the EU.
    You want to see your future outside the EU, look at Norway.
    They follow EVERY EU regulation if they want to even have a CHANCE at trading with us ( and get no say in the decision making ).
    They are basically a vassal state, so you’ll still be “ruled by evul Brussels” only you won’t even get a voice in things.
    Think about that.

  66. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    @Bastian: Hate to break it to you but Turkey is an USA tool.
    They wouldn’t benefit the EU at all and i for one all am for keeping them out. They are so quick to lick the US boot it’s disgraceful.

  67. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    With Turkey entering the EU Greece definitely won’t go back to 1825 Bastian… If anything else, I think it will be for the better for us. Now if it is for the better of Europe I do not know… But with Turkey under the control of European policies they won’t be able to have the attitude that they have right now towards Greece, Cyprus and the rest of the Balkan states like Bulgaria… I totally agree with you as to who is ruling the EU now, as there is little transparency on the “lobbystocracy” that the EU currently is. But that is why to give more power to the EP and make the MEPs and the policies that they vote for more accountable to us, rather depend on the EU Commission to decide for major policies that will affect us all.. They are unelected by us and they have been so many corruption scandals involving the EU Commission.. It is well known that many lobbies influence the policies they pursue.. So if we let things as they are, nothing will change for the better… I think it is time to try something different.

  68. avatar

    We demand the federal structure of the European Union on the basis of a federal state. We reject any form of unitarism and centralism. We also reject any form within the European international organization that is, in fact, disguised disintegration of Europe. We perform on the personality of the state of each Member State forming part of a European Federation. We speak to the democratic structure of the European Union, and therefore we reject all forms within the European international organizations. The European Federal State is the guarantor of the democratic structures of the federation.

  69. avatar
    Patrick S.

    No. Imagine the disputes between France and the UK.

  70. avatar
    Antinazi Archimedes

    “Is it time for a United States of Europe? ” you mean permanent warfare and genocide like the USofA did and does over the last 236 years? Fascism and imperialism no thanks.

  71. avatar

    United States of Europe

    “Let’s abandon this perspective – this will discourage the 0.01% of the people who are federalist – and let us not compare ourselves to the United States,” he said.

    “When the Americans created the United States, they brought together Americans. The same when Bismarck brought together the Germans. As General de Gaulle said, you don’t make an omelette with hard-boiled eggs.”

    Védrine, 65, served as foreign minister to the government of Lionel Jospin from 1997 to 2002. A Socialist, he was tipped for a senior role under François Hollande in 2012 but the French president opted for a younger cabinet.

    Védrine admitted that the solution to the eurozone crisis had mostly been driven by Northern Europe. “But the common political economy should not be reduced to the transmission of German demands to other countries,” he said.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel has mooted in interviews the idea of a “political union” where countries ceded more sovereignty as a solution to save the euro currency

    “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy,” Merkel was quoted as saying June last year.

    France so far has been reluctant to take a leap towards federalism but may advocate ceding some fiscal control to Germany in exchange for Eurobonds and debt-pooling under a “grand bargain”. For Germany that would be the end point of a fiscal union

  72. avatar

    Limbidis Adrian has never heard of the World Trade Organization, that much is clear.
    And Norway doesn’t follow ‘every’ EU regulation, nor are they in any way excluded from trading.

    But nice to see someone who admits the Eurosoviet is a customs union and not a free trade zone.

    And to Krystian: who is this ‘we’? Who is demanding an European federal state? Not the people, that’s for sure. So who is the ‘we’? Bankers?

  73. avatar
    Radoslav S. Bozov (@Radobozov)

    Implementing an algorithm of observable parameters of a system (politico-economic based on scientific evidence and religious paradigm concepts) requires ratifying an absolute input of ‘parallel times’ relative to partial ordered sets of discrete spaces, where forces/energies in term of regulation agendas are as discrete to space as continual to continuity of matter at issue.
    As unity is not unity , rather interference of spaces via time, observed as 1 within sets of matrices, a federal union shell rely on compressed forms of regulations of a system reflecting freedom of ‘spirit’ within discrete spaces of unobservable energy states.
    A linear continual system is likely to fail due hierarchical constrains of political false positives collapsing quantum mechanics within society determined to evolve in consciousness of ever expanding spaces due bending of parallel times of shifted discrete spaces.
    Fixed policies aiming towards stability and equilibrium of political factors affecting mass opinion of reality will likely generate inter spacial tensions of stagnated and rigid sets of systems sacrificing potential valuable minds of emerging youth , thus posing high risks of systems collapse.
    Because educational systems rely on models of various school philosophical concepts displacing time issues within discrete spaces, living systems would require illuminating concepts that emerge forces within variability constrains of space-time issues, where common energy ground near zero/strings, dissipate phase currents , 1.
    Clusters of negentroic self generating energy capacity within space , are necessary forms of cluster network interactivity, where parliaments are being specified via a Federal Union Power capable of perturbing the interference of discrete spaces.
    The principle of quantum complimentary where dynamics of discrete space/energies reflect kinetics of time-matter continuity is in an absolute agreement of contemporary concepts of entangled ‘units’.

  74. avatar

    We dont need or want a fed.
    As far as the war senario goes ,its just not an argument , thats B.S. , we have enough to obliviate one another .Were just not that stupid .
    Financially, no that doesnt wash either. Strong competitive individual countries is the key, we need innovation , ideas, skills , and a skilled workforce in each country.
    You cant spend on these things when your sending all your finances to an unaccountable/unaudited brussels, whom in turn use this money for bailouts/bonds/market speculation and for countries in trouble who are in the euro, who shouldnt be in the euro in the first place , wow talk about mismanagement . Any economist will tell you these countries need to go back to thier own currencies and devalue. Not get driven into poverty and an endless cycle of bailouts and misery.
    If we go to a federation it will ruin the very core of europe with unknown consequences and that i find more frightening .
    People whom believe a fed will work also believe in fairytales. Look at the good ole usa, fannymay/freddymac , chasemorgan, monsanto, just to name a few run the show there. Is that what we want here people? Come on get real. 2 parties rep/dem one more corrupt than the other, one size fits all huh like it or not. Land of the free?
    Lets not go there people…
    in brussels they want us to work longer, and for less, they want to take over our pensions, destroy labour laws, thier even eyeing dutch water supplies,let people sleep under bridges and then tell us its good for us. labour reform ,minimum wage for all… i SAY REFORM BRUSSELS!!
    A federation starting with trillions of euros debt and a minimum wage workforce,hey that sounds like a plan. What the #$#@%@,get real. It will take generations to fix and make a fed work, back to the drawing board please!!!!
    I know chucking brussels in the bin wouldnt be easy at first, but i can guarantee its a lot easier than the status quo and well all come out better in the end….!

  75. avatar

    If our Government wants to remain in OFFICE, then they must take us out of the EU BEFORE 2014 for that is when the EU may have total control of our Legislative Powers to the European Union according to the Treaty of Lisbon-that none of us were allowed a “say” on, if we do not “opt out” of them. Strengthening also the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is also one of the main objectives of the EU and YES there is much more. As we all know, if the Conservatives get back into ‘Office’ they will allow us a referendum on the EU in 2017-they have promised! Wipe the smirk off your faces. If they do not OPT OUT of all what the EU want in 2014-what will be the point of a referendum? What will be left? And if they get back in what if they change their mind and “opt in” to all those they have just opted out of? There is indeed a DATE given when they must opt out, if they miss that date? Obviously “goodbye forever” on a great deal more authority (Sovereignty) to govern ourselves. The people may well be so angry-all those that denied us a REFERENDUM might have to go and live on the Continent-forever. For what will there be ‘left’ to govern this Country with? Come on, because all we have watched Mr Cameron “do” since he has been in power, is apply EU Legislation, and I will never forgive any of them for dividing our nation and country of ENGLAND into bite size pieces of EU REGIONS.

  76. avatar

    That is clear. We need to move towards the United States of Europe to manage today’s global and domestic challenges. We need a federation giving European citizens the power to decide for real what happens in Europe.

    Austerity or growth, this is what is at stake!

    This is OUR future. Let’s get it back!


  77. avatar

    A successfully negotiated Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would aim to boost economic growth in the United States and Europe and add to the over 13 million American and European jobs already supported by transatlantic trade and investment. In particular, the Partnership would aim to:

    • Further open markets to grow the $459 billion in U.S. goods and services exports to the EU, our largest export market, which already supports an estimated 2.4 million well-paying American jobs.

    • Strengthen rules-based investment to grow the world’s largest investment relationship. The United States and the EU already maintain a total of nearly $4 trillion in investment in each other’s economies, supporting nearly 7 million jobs.

    • Tackle costly “behind the border” non-tariff barriers that impede the flow of goods and services trade.

    • Seek to significantly cut the cost of differences in regulation and standards by promoting greater compatibility, transparency, and cooperation.

    • Enhance cooperation on the development of rules and principles on issues of global concern, including on market-based disciplines for State-Owned Enterprises, combating discriminatory localization barriers to trade, and promoting the global competitiveness of small- and medium-sized enterprises.

  78. avatar

    To EUROPEAN FEDERALIST PARTY, I am going to let you into a little secret. When the Berlin Wall was still up I visted both EAST and WEST Berlin. (Through “Check Point Charlie”) The difference between those two parts of that once wonderful city was beyond belief. Free to go anywhere in the “West” exactly the opposite in the EAST-escorted everywhere and the feeling of eyes on you all the while.

    You will not get what you wish for or for what you think the future will be like-if you get your own way.

  79. avatar

    In this future United States of Europe, are there any thoughts on the idea of agencies with agents, after the North American model?

  80. avatar
    Rob Riley

    Not USE, USSE!

    United Socialist States of Europe.

  81. avatar
    Harri-Jake Ollis

    “Is it time for a United States of Europe?”

    Most definitely. I’ve seen posts about the economic benefits and other pros around federalization, but nobody seems to have mentioned the historical significance of such an event. The prospect of a united Europe based on principles of Liberté, égalité, fraternité is so exciting from a historical perspective.

    To really appreciate why it’s so exciting you just take a minute to think back through the course of European history.From the Hundred’s Years War to the Yugoslav wars of the 90’s Europeans have killed each other on issues ranging from monarchy to ethnicity for as long as the tools have existed to do so. A Federal Europe would signal a definitive end to the ancient bloodletting and have the ability to introduce an age of peace, prosperity and peaceful co-existence not seen since the Roman Empire stretched across the continent.

    Vive la Federalism!

  82. avatar
    George Chalkias

    EU need to become common country right now.

  83. avatar

    Sadly Harri-Jake Ollis I remember too well the 1939-45 War which you seem to have conveniently forgotten. Perhaps if you had been around in EAST Berlin shortly after that war, you would perhaps begin-just maybe-begin to understand what the true European Union means.

  84. avatar
    Kyriakos Topsoglou

    It is time for the United States of Europe but it’s not time for the United States of America in Europe !!! STOP COPY & PASTE THE AMERICAN MODEL IN EUROPE THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG !!!

    • avatar

      I agree you partly. The name is bad but it is the lesser evil of the earlier mentioned names “…EUSSR, 4th REICH or People’s Republic of Europe as Maoist Barroso…”

      I prefer European Federation.

  85. avatar

    It may well become a United States of Europe-but the United Kingdom will not be in it. If you want to be in it-you will have to go and live on the Continent-however, it is written (in aver ancient doccument) that it will not last long and you do not need me to explain how it will end.

  86. avatar

    I think we should all unify to create one new superpower country, if we all worked under one constitution we would have good wages smaller taxes and we would advance in science and space a lot easier

  87. avatar

    Yes! We should create the united states of Europe. Federalistic and directdemocratic with autonomous rights to regions. Also a law for no Censorship in the internet.

  88. avatar
    bring it on.

    I am not British but for the first time I can agree with Nigel Farage, even thought I am pro European and EU , I don’t like this project …at least now. Its fine as it is , we still need to keep our pride of where we come from and stand out in todays world.

  89. avatar

    Perhaps it is time for the British Government and two Parliaments to decide whether THEY want to govern this Country through their own Common Law Constitution or just allow the EU’s Committee of the Regions to Govern through the EU’s Regions for the European Union to Govern us directly, all that the present Prime Minister has eagerly set up for the European Union. THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD BOTH. As our Constitution FORBIDS foreigners governing this Country in any way and two World Wars have been fought and won with many deaths on all sides to prevent exactly that, it is indeed time for the present British Government to make their minds up. The people elected THEM into Parliament-it is THEY that must make the Decision-there is no need of a REFERENDUM-the people have already put them into Government to make the Decision. It is of course treason to destroy our Long standing Common Law Constitution and unrepealable Treason Acts are there to protect our Constitution, yet we know all three major Political Parties want to remain in the EU-forever, but if the outcome of a referendum from the “people” came as a YES to remain in-Ah yes, all neat and tidy, treason cannot possibly be brought forward for all those millions of people. All neat and tidy in allowing foreigners to Govern this Country-forever.

    The people may decide they cannot even contribute financially to foreigners Governing us-perhaps the Government’s Legal Eagles could inform the people, which of course must be according to our Constitution. Either IN or OUT completely out of the European Union, it is in the end the people’s decision for the people cannot, according to their Constitution encourage in any way, to allow foreigners governing this country, which of course is meant to be-forever. Either one State of European Union or a United States of European Union, or freedom from foreign Rule? Which is it to be eh?

  90. avatar
    Kyle Smith

    I’m all for a United Europe, but please don’t call it the United States of Europe. Such a silly and copy cat name really shouldn’t be anywhere near the table. I much prefer the European Federation or something similar.
    One key component of the state must be, however, the preservation of national governments inside the larger federal government. That means the United Kingdom keeps it’s constitutional monarchy, but has certain powers transferred to the greater European state, such as defense/war and the economy

  91. avatar

    Oh Dear, Sorry about that Kyle. I will WRITE the wrong, so here just for YOU.

    On 3rd August 1961 (column 1735) Mr Shinwell continues his words after having read out a part of the Treaty of Rome, ending with “reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and widening of its powers and, finally, a European Government. That is the intention. That is their object and that is what they are saying on Hon Members can talk until they are black in the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most influential people–M.Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated that there is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic provisions of the Rome Treaty—and it looks as though this government might—they are on their way towards complete political integration”.

    “I wonder what this place will be like during the course of the next ten years? There will not be 630 Hon Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be like—”

    Mr A. C. Manuel, “A Council”.

    Mr Shinwell, “I was about to say a Parish Council, with the authority of some kind delegated to it by the European Parliament and dictated to be a European Government. To that we are being led”.
    Mr Jennings 16th November 1966 Column 495. “”The question of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and quietly under the carpet”.

    There Kyle, Is TAT OK for you!

  92. avatar

    Yes, we need the united states of europe, (direct) democratic, federalistic, social and transparent. That’s my dream. Bigger states will bring better stability in the end and also we can stand in the economic challenges between China/Brasilia/India/…

  93. avatar

    That is indeed what it will come C3lv1c3, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain will no longer be in it, and as I understand it, we will not be the only ones to be free from foreign rule either.

  94. avatar

    we don’t make an omelette with hard-boiled eggs !!!!! ain’t gonna work.
    first reason ? why do you guys don’t post using your respective mother tongue language ? because you wouldn’t understand each other !!!!!
    first and foremost, a common language is necessary in order to get united !!!!
    wanna create a unique european language too ?! good luck with that you dreamers !!!
    You guys are well educated enough to understand each other in english but what about those who can’t !
    my neighbor ain’t my brother he’s not part of my folks and never will be !!! I like my family small so I share everything with its members. My family is my identity.
    Same thing for countries… can’t you see that a portuguese guy has just as much in common with the german dude than cats and dogs !!!

  95. avatar

    This poem Matt, was written at the time when there was only 11 Nation States in the European Union. Europanto was created in 1996 by Diego Mariani a journalist, author and translator for the European Council of Ministers in Brussels. Europanto is a linguistic jest presented as a “constructive language” with a hodge-podge vocabulary from many European languages. Marani created it in response to the perceived dominance of the English language, it is an emulation of the effect that non-native speakers struggling to learn a language typically add words and phrases from their native language to express their meanings clearly. He thought this was easier than Esperanto which one had to learn. This below was sent to him and in return I received a letter back. He obviously had fun reading it.


    Esté nueva idioma, no es crazy,
    Pero it can make unas personas trés lazy,
    No necesitar to learn eleven idiomas,
    For al final cette course, no hay diplomas.
    C’est trés facile than “Old English Pigion”,
    Per favore-grazie, you learn just a smidgen,
    Straight up mate, vous ne regrettez pas,
    Just cheek, sommi Old Greek, you understand JA?

    Was darf es sein more than anything now?
    For c’est un morçeau de gateau, mein Frau,
    C’est wild, to learn impotante Europese,
    Just mix up todo este idiomas avec mucho ease.
    Beware though, personas in Brussels just might,
    Qué commencer as a joke, may be taken as right,
    Si Europanto catches on, c’est vraiment to relate,
    Mucho interpreters will meet a very sad fate.

    Goodbye, Arrivederci, Gia sas, Hasta Luego, Adjö, Näkemiin,
    Farvel, Dag, Au revior, Até logo, and Auf Wiedersehen,
    N’est pas vraiment, C’est un horreur,
    Arrividerci———————until tomorreur!!!!

  96. avatar
    Niels Thue

    No. I think it is time for a “Confederate States of Europe”, which is based on state/national rights and doesn’t intervene in all aspects of the governing of member states. The idea of a strong federal union is loong dead, but a loose Confederacy could win the hearts and minds of the peoples of Europe.

  97. avatar

    There is absolutely no such choice. It is either freedom from foreign rule, or the one thing that so many died for in 1939-1945 war to prevent, The one STATE of European Union. Yet all in our TWO Houses of Parliament still seem to think the people can afford and are stupid enough to pay our Government and foreigners for governing them-Well we can’t afford it for the reality is indeed that this country is already £trillions in debt now-and they are still giving money to foreigners.

  98. avatar
    Niels Thue

    @ Anne
    Is it not possible to choose a third way for Europe? Do you believe that it’s either total federal control or no European community at all?

    I believe a third way is not only possible, it is also necessary. Because the European project has to survive. Otherwise, we will be doomed to repeat the horrors of nationalism we saw in WW1 and WW2.

    A Confederate States of Europe, with more democratic control, would be able to solve the problems of the Euro-zone, as well as keeping the non-euro member states together in a peaceful evolving community. A clear vision of a loose de-centralized confederation could re-vitalize the European project in the hearts of all the peoples of Europe and remove all fears of a centralized federal European super-state.

    The Confederate States of Europe (C.S.E) simply implies a more benign and de-centralized community/union than the term United States of Europe (U.S.E) does.

  99. avatar

    Sadly Niels Thue, that is not and never will be “on the cards”. In case you haven’t noticed, those 16 Southern Medditereain Countries that the EU “embraced”, through the European Neighbourhood Policy that was first proposed by the Commission in 2003-2004 as a framework policy through which an enlarged EU could strengthen and deepen relations with its 16 closest neighbours. (Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine) with a view to counteracting risks of marginalisation for the neighbouring countries which had not participated in the historic 2004 enlargement and therefore ensuring the strengthening of a shared area of prosperity, stability and security. Look at what has happened to some of those wonderful Country’s now. All the terrible killings in that wonderful City of Cairo we visited some years ago now, what of them? How many “Heads of State have been replaced? Was it anything to do with the promise of the Arab Spring, “SPRING”? (“Support for Partnership, Reform, and Inclusive Growth.”) Although there are further titles to this project-it seems to depend on which article you happen to catch hold of.

  100. avatar
    Niels Thue

    @ Anne

    I sense that you fear a coming apocalypse. An apocalypse created by a European Super State. I don’t believe you have anything to fear from the European Project in that regard.

    I truly believe that the apocalypse you refer to, already has happened, and that it ended 68 years ago, with the defeat of the Third Reich. Hitler and his vile henchmen are the ones described in ancient texts and holy scriptures. Because their horrific actions caused many people to lose their faith in God. How could the Almighty allow such slaughter of the innocent.

    The people of this world will forever be in debt to the British people for keeping up their spirits during the dark months when Britain and her Commonwealth stood alone against the onslaught of the Nazi war machine.

    The past 68 years has been a long reconstruction phase, inwich the world is trying to re-discover its balance and faith again. People need to have a vision of something bigger than themselves, something that will endure after they are no more. Nothing in nature is static, everything changes and evolves and that is why I believe that the European project is important. Because if we don’t learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them over and over again.

    Is it wrong that Europe wants to have good relations with its neighbours and offers them to cooperate on border-crossing issues? I don’t believe the “liberal” revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East against military dictators and despots is a western (EU) conspiracy, as many of the revolters are islamic fundamentalists. It is simply history repeating itself, the revolutions seem to follow the same course as the liberal revolutions of Europe did in 1848. Just as the revolutions of 1848 neither was a British nor an American conspiracy to spread liberal ideas of freedom. But their liberal societies inspired many continental Europeans to fight for the same possibilities.

    The revolutions of 1848 in Europe were about the people rising up against absolute power, just as today’s revolutions in the Middle East and Northern Africa are driven by people’s wish for freedom and liberty.

    I believe we need a European community that can defend and secure our liberal democratic rights and freedoms. So that we in the future don’t have to do everything the Chinese, Indians or Americans ask of us. If our Nations sail of alone into the future in small individual cannoes without life jackets or a big mothership, then many are bound to become fishfood and drown.

    A loose Confederation that respects the right of the individual member states and makes it a virtue to ensure de-centralized rule on every level is an option. Such a community can sail Europe’s nations safely into the future, without loosing our distinct national characters in the process.

    And that is why I hope the EU will be de-centralized into a Confederate States of Europe. A community that can help the member states overcome all those challenges that no nation today can handle alone.

    An oil spil in the English Channel by a Chinese oiltanker or a radioactive Russian satellite crashing into the North Sea, could be devastating and crippling to any single nation. But if we stand behind eachother and help eachother we can prevail.

  101. avatar

    Two World Wars-Two, not one. The third time is NOW.

  102. avatar
    Niels Thue

    @ Anne
    There has been three truly global world-wide conflicts.

    As you know, the First World War was known as the Great War by those who fought in it. Only when the Second World War was a reality, the Great War became known as the First World War.

    But if you go back further, then the bloody Seven Years War, between Britain and France for global control and colonies, between 1754 and 1763 could be refered to as the First World War, as this was the first truly global world-wide confict.

    If you look upon the Seven Years War that way, then the Great War from 1914 to1918 would be the Second World War. Thus making the war from 1939 to 1945 the Third World War.

    Thus the “Third World War” (1939-1945) ended with the total destruction of the old world order and with a European continent in ashes. It must truly have felt like Götterdämmerung, Regnarok, Armageddon to those who had to live trough those dark times.

    Hitler’s Thousand Years Reich only lasted 12 years, but it must have felt as a thousand years for those who had to endure it. I believe that Hitler was the Anti-Christ and that he wanted to undo all of Jesus’ teachings. You cannot compare the horrors commited by the Third Reich with the European project.

    Remember Hitler and his henchmen refered to Nazi-Germany as the “Third” Reich. Following the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. All three were Germanic empires that were based on the legacy of the Roman Empire.

    If you fear a nuclear holocaust, then such an event will NOT be started nor initiated by EU. Simply because Britain and France only holds tiny arsenals of atomic weapons in comparison to the true leaders of the new world order: USA, Russia, China and India. EU will never become a new Rome, but it could become a loose Confederacy of democratic nation states. It could also end up as the poor backwater of Asia’s global powerhouses in China and India.

    In the end you must ask yourself this. Who do you wish shall settle the stars and the multitude of planets around them in our Galaxy. Your grandchildren or the grandchildren of China, India and America? Only a vibrant European community can lift such an endevour.

  103. avatar

    I am not interested in the 1754 and 1763 War. As myself and family were in that second World War, I know exactly what war is all about. Did YOU visit Berlin while the WALL was up? Did you not notice the GREAT difference between West Berlin and East Berlin? You wrote previously, “Is it wrong that Europe wants to have good relations with its neighbours and offers them to cooperate on border-crossing issues? They don’t want good relations, they want to give all the orders that our elected Politicians have to put into practice, and if they do not do as they so wish each Country is Fined heavily-No Court Case, no innocent Me Lud, each Country will be continually fined until each Country has no money left and certainly no money to protect their own Country for they can’t afford ‘planes, Battleships or fighting Forces or haven’t you noticed? Almost every Country in the EU is “Financially embarrassed”, quite deliberately so only the ones in high places are the ones that are walking round with their eyes closed. As for your last Question, I can assure you that there will never be a vibrant European Community to settle the Stars nor the planets-ever. Just pray that the last two will remain along with mother EARTH, for I do not see a great future for the latter.

  104. avatar

    are our children and their children to be ruled by America, China, Brazil etc… ? of course !!!!
    WE already are!!!!
    and it’s way too late to ask ourselves this question. In my opinion the question we have to answer would rather be… HOW do I want those superpowers influence myself and our children and grand children ?
    superpowers do are dictators. we just don’t call them dictators or reich and so on…

    Well I’d prefer to suffer the influence (or take advantage of it …cause we’re always talking about it’s bad side) of those superpowers by remaining a proud citizen of my beloved country (yes I do am nationalist and I don’t see it as a negative thing but rather as a strength) rather than by commiting to any european project to which I can’t and don’t want to relate. We are not european people. It doesn’t exist. at the time people would go oversea to build and be part of what became the usa. those men and women were willing to participate in the building of this country. but as for people in what we wrongly call Europe, we are citizen of our own respective states. we ain’t going nowhere in order to create something new. and there’s just no way we can make up something out of old countries which have built their identities and cultures over centuries. period.

  105. avatar
    Niels Thue

    Yes, I did visit Berlin during the cold war. This long conflict between the free and open societies of the liberal democracies in the West against the closed authoritarian communist dictatorships of the East. Ended with the fall of Soviet communism and prevail of liberal democracies.

    I believe we live in the beginning of a new era not at the end of an old one. The time when Europe was the centre of the world is over. Armageddon brought a violent end to that 68 years ago. The immediate aftermath was a long struggle between two ideologies, the outcome would decide what kind of world our grandchildren would inherit.

    The European Community (EEC) was an important part in uniting the Western part of Europe politically and economically against the threat from Soviet expansion or possible aggresion. NATO was the military component of the Western defence against Soviet might.

    I don’t condone everything the Western countries have done or are doing but I do prefer to live in a liberal democracy, rather than in a authoritarian dictatorship. That is why I wan’t the EU to evolve along a confederate line, with state rights as its most important pillar.

    If Europe disentegrates, then we will loose our best hope of influence in the world and I don’t wan’t the European ideas of human rights and democratic control to be replaced by Chinese ideas of one party rule and dictate in international affairs. That is why I think Europe has to have a strong voice in the UN, alongside the voices of USA, China and Russia.

    I DON’T want the EU to develop into a communist or fascist super state, and the clear majority of Europeans don’t want that either. But there is a third and a fourth way. I want the common rules and laws of the EU to be openly discussed in a democratic forum, NOT pushed through by invisible eurocrates without debate.

    The problem with the popular debate right now is that it is either for a centralised super state or no EU at all. Why not find a compromise in between, which gives us a loose Confederate community to deal with the challenges the future throws at us, no matter what nationality we have.

    We cannot hope for the USA to be able to defend the nations of Europe forever. Their economy is hard hit and they have to focus on the pacific and the rise of China and India. Soon Europe will have to be able to defend it self and make sure that the European nations don’t turn against eachother again either.

    Who will listen to Britain or France in the future with their mere 60-70 million citizens and declining economies. Compared to India with almost 1000 million citizens, China with 1300+ million citizens and USA with 300+ million citizens.

  106. avatar
    Niels Thue

    So it is OK to be ruled by foreign powers (China, USA, Brazil etc.), because we already are ruled by them?

    Don’t you want your elected officials to have influence on the decisions that are taken on your behalf?

    Would it be better for Britain or Denmark if China or India simply dictate their trade-rules to the individual nation states of Europe, instead of our nations negotiate through EU with a common voice.

    Just imagine a future European continent divided into real spheres of influence between Russia, China, India and USA. It would become a poor Asian backwater. Is that the future you wish for our children and grandchildren?

    Would Britain be better of in such a scenario? Just imagine Chinese, Indian or Russian fleets patroling the North Sea to ensure that their respective national interests are fulfilled.

    What if Scotland pulls out of the United Kingdom? Will a United Kingdom of only England, Wales and Northern Ireland have the economic strength to maintain a credible modern military force to deter foreign aggresion or oppresion?

    Only if we work together within a community, can we hope to have a say on important global matters. I believe a loose Confederation of soverign nation states can ensure that we will have such a voice.

  107. avatar

    At the moment our Prime Minister-David Cameron is asking the EU to sort out the problem re Spain v Gibraltar. As Gibraltar’s position as a British fortress since the early 18th Century and as a vital factor in the British military strategy, it is up to our present Prime Minister to sort this out-it has nothing to do with the European Union to sort out. It is a UK problem and Mr Cameron is allegedly the Head of our present Government, it is up to him to sort out.

    If I am wrong in that, and Gibraltar has been given away to the European Union, especially without the people of both the UK and Gibraltar being told, then sheer treachery has been done-if not treason. The people of Gibraltar endured terrible, terrible hardship in World War II -for us all here in the UK. It is time for all the people here in the UK INCLUDING ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE IN BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT to stand up for all the people of Gibraltar NOW. Just do it Mr Cameron-yourself and if you cannot, because matters such as this comes under the EU and no longer us, then all the people of this Country can no longer contribute in any way-even financially any long to your ‘wages and vast expenses’, and without doubt our Constitution FORBIDS ANY OF US in encouraging any foreigners in any way and yes, even financially for, Governing us. We went to war twice to prevent such and the last WAR, i remember vividly.”…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.”

  108. avatar

    first and foremost I see you really believe in europe or whatever you call it and I respect that. I just don’t see the world with the same eyes.
    this said I’m Swiss. that may help you understand the way I see things.
    You’re talking about being under the influence of “foreign” powers.
    well to me there’s just no difference between being influenced by China or the French, or the Germans or any other “european” state. those are all FOREIGN influences. And as so many swiss surveys prove it… we aren’t really willing to let the EU force us to play the game with its rule !!!! We just signed a big commercial partnership with China in order to decrease our dependency to the EU and make business with the future world number 1 (because yes there’s just no way we can stop them on their way to that spot).
    I agree with you on one thing though : being united may (not sure) help us to resist to superpowers like the US or China and so on… but at which price ? The less we have to do with the EU the better we’re doing in Switzerland. this is a fact. Does it cost us a lot ? yes. Does our national bank has to buy tons of euros in order to weaken the strong swiss franc so we can keep exporting our goods and services ? yes. Our liberty has a price too. but we prefer pay the price than loosing our independence and sovereignty. because yes becoming part of something bigger than us (I quote you) means we have to let go things we just don’t want to give away!!!! and if the Chinese ways don’t fit ours then we will forget about this partnership we signed and we will find an other way to prevail as a swiss people. there’s always a way!!
    As for my children… I wish them to live in a free country. I don’t want them do pay for the over indebted EU countries !!! I don’t want them to pay for the french retirements plans (a people that just can’t make a simple calculation and understand that it’s not possible to work 35 hours a week between 30 and 50 and live on the government’s money till 80!!!!) I don’t want them to let some FOREIGN overpaid politician guy in Brussels, Berlin or Madrid tell them what they have to do !!! hell no !!! if there’s a god up there I thank him for living in a country where citizens had and still have the balls to resist and say no to the european project a couple years ago!!!
    We made a step towards the EU by allowing any citizens to come to Switzerland. but by not being part of the EU we negotiated the right to close our borders in case to many foreign people are coming so we can’t favor our own people when it comes to get a job. Do you see my point ? I want my children to live in a country that can favor them if there are too many foreigners trying to get a slice of our cake !!!!
    Are french or italian people going through hard times ? probably. but as tough as it may sounds … It’s just none of my business!!! I’m sorry for them but they have to deal with their problems. We have ours !!! I don’t want to lose my standard of living for them. I don’t wanna invest into eurobonds so we can mix all the respective european debts! I wanna invest in something that will make my country prevail !!!!
    Again this is at a certain price we are where we are as a swiss people but it’s worth it and I look forward to teaching and sharing this privilege to my children.
    you can call it a confederation rather than a federation or a union or whatever you want but the european project implies to delegate some power to someone else at some point. not by me Sir !!!

  109. avatar

    You have said it all. Thank you .

  110. avatar
    Serge Lauer

    The realistic option is an democratic Federal United Europe for the EMU !
    Because the policies for the economic and monetary union NEEDS at least federal rules ! Either they do it right or at this level (moron economie with high unemployement ) where we are , we are loosing Europe with even having even no say at all in future..

    North-Americans have understand the sense of an unification..

  111. avatar
    Luis Cortez

    USE, is not merely a choice, it is the ONLY credible choice, for a Europe with future, European states alone, are in their bases, proportionaly rich, as Europe is in agricultural/water resources, even some industrial resources, a very blessed land, yet our entities are too small, to generate enough wealth and power, to avoid being in medium/long term dictated by great powers, like Russia, China, USA, India, Brazil, and it will happen as Niels said above.

    Europe will end being carved up between spheres of influence, local political decisions will worth nothing, the true decisions, will be made in Washington, Beijing, Delhi, Brasilia, Moscow, unregarding completely our peoples wishes, and aspirations, if anything we will be beggars for them, receiving some trinkets for obedient behavior from time to time, or punishment if failure to comply, and thats it, and nothing else, this is the future of a divided Europe, it is not just, and it is not free, its how it is, its how it always has been among humanity, until Europe becomes one of the porest regions in the world, well, and people are forced out, for a living, and this countries end being integrated directly in the ones that would dominate them already.

    We need a USE, and alterate the structure of the EU as to be democratic, the more democratic and transparent as possible, the predicted “people chambers”, should be the instance with greater power, 1% EGDP budget is ridiculous, it must be far above this.

    A common language (keeping the regional languages) should be instated, there is a lot of options there, it can be english, latin, baltic, esperanto……. why this, to make a migrated european immidiately familiar with the place he chose to go, and more importantly immidiately productive, without the need of years of adaptation to the language, of course if the migrated person wishes to develop a cultural related career, he should learn the local language(s), “the local languages will be extinct”, of course not, as if the migrated person has children, those will learn the local language(s).

    We must be ingenious, as our forefathers were, many of the prevalent ones, are praised by nationalists, but they ignore(most of them are complete ignorants) that they made breaks with the past, there would exist no large european state, without (at first) very difficult compromises, between tribes, city states, feudalities, etc, we must advance, folks, if we really are the old and wise world it is time to prove it.
    “Mens can delay, but time does not.”

  112. avatar

    A confederation with some joint ministeries could work.The head of State would basically like the president in Germany or the queen in the UK.He s like the head of the state but only represents.There should be a basic constitution and homogenized aspects like school,vocational systems,university ,one joint police and a single army,but every country keeps it souvernity and is free to decide within the constitution.That would be the only acceptable destination a united europe could be heading to.

  113. avatar

    Luis, here is your new language although this was written when there were only 11 Countries in the EU.

    Esté nueva idioma, no es crazy,
    Pero it can make unas personas trés lazy,
    No necesitar to learn eleven idiomas,
    For al final cette course, no hay diplomas.

    C’est trés facile than “Old English Pigion”,
    Per favore-grazie, you learn just a smidgen,
    Straight up mate, vous ne regrettez pas,
    Just cheek, sommi Old Greek, you understand JA?

    Was darf es sein more than anything now?
    For c’est un morçeau de gateau, mein Frau,
    C’est wild, to learn impotante Europese,
    Just mix up todo este idiomas avec mucho ease.

    Beware though, personas in Brussels just might,
    Qué commencer as a joke, may be taken as right,
    Si Europanto catches on, c’est vraiment to relate,
    Mucho interpreters will meet a very sad fate.

    Goodbye, Arrivederci, Gia sas, Hasta Luego, Adjö, Näkemiin,
    Farvel, Dag, Au revior, Até logo, and Auf Wiedersehen,
    N’est pas vraiment, C’est un horreur,
    Arrividerci———————until tomorreur!!!!

  114. avatar

    I would prefer a north euro and a south euro.within this areas we could have full integration as the people have basically the some mentallaty.I mean Germans,Dutch and Austrians make fun of each other,but we re closer then we think.We all have this medievil mentallity like:”oh great hot summer this year great harvest i guess,but last year it was freezing cold ,so better gather things for the bad days to come.”This gathering thing is definetly there,so a north euro would be working great.within this zone there could be full integration and also north eurobonds as all countries having aaa-status and economy is preatty much at the same level.this would make it easier to introduce a north federation as the people are closer to each other.the some could be introduced in the south.This two new federations could work together in a new EU,so work together in some aspects (one single army,cooperation in economy,exchange programms and staff)but be basically independent from each other.So the north and south could be working together in a confederation,with a single constitution,but it shouldn t be named a confederation because the people would hardly get used to it

  115. avatar

    Alex. Churchill said: “The British nation is stirred and moved as it never has been at any time in its long, eventful, famous history. And it is no hackneyed trope of speech to say that they mean to conquer or to die. What a triumph the life of these battered cities is over the worst that fire and bomb can do! What a vindication of the civilized and decent way of living we have been trying to work for and work toward in our island! What a proof of the virtues of free institutions! What a test of the quality of our local authorities and of customs and societies so steadily built!” And finally these words, “”We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us and say, ‘Shall we speak for thee?’, we should reply, ‘Nay Sir, for we dwell among our own people’.”

    To Charles de Gaulle: “When I have to choose between you and Roosevelt, you should know that I will always choose Roosevelt. And when I have to choose between Europe and the wide open seas… I will always choose the wide open seas.”

    In my language, the people cannot continue voting and paying towards a Government that can no longer “govern” according to our long standing Common Law Constitution. The people have never been allowed a “say” before one EU Treaty was ratified. Our Government is to decide whether to “OPT IN” to “Justice and Home Affair and POLICING” in 2014, it should of course reject this EU proposal completely and forever. The only thing the people can do is, come the general Election in 2015, only vote for any Political Party of Organisation that wants out of the EU-forever. It matters not if none has governed this Country according to its constitution before. None has since 1972/3

  116. avatar
    Keiran Martin

    i live in England and im completely for a unified Europe, i mean i dont want to be speaking mandarin in 40 years time……

  117. avatar

    Of course we need to unite and cohabit. This is the ideal of so many generations that have lived before. The question thow, remains whether an European Union will stay faithful to the founamental rights an if the freeoms of expression will continue untouched. So I shall support the change, but one made step by step, even though I have no assurance regarding the EU.

  118. avatar

    In fact the change comes within each of us and there is no need for an external influence. It is all up to us if we just want it so.
    „Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” Plato

  119. avatar

    I think it’s time for U.S.E, cause here in Bulgaria everything is wrong and may be if we become one big country everyone’s problems will be done..

    • avatar
      Keiran Martin

      Don’t leach onto everyone else because you can’t solve it yourself.

  120. avatar

    It is time for our alleged British Government to begin to realise the sheer Treachery/Treason they have done to their own Country’s Long Standing -over 600 years old-Common Law Constitution. A government that has allegedly altered nine separate parts of it-which, without the people’s consent-BECAUSE IT IS THE PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTION- it remains as it was and is written. Too many people, civilians as well as service men and women, gave their lives in the keeping of it-FOREVER. As our British Judges also apparently come under the EU’s laws because of the EEC/EC/EU Treaties ratified, no charges of Treason may come to be. That of course leaves the people with only one alternative, for their Constitution is quite clear in two separate parts that they may not encourage or contribute IN ANY WAY what-so-ever in foreigners Governing this Country, for we elect asnd pay our own Government to Govern according to law which they all so swear to before the may take up their seats. And “…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.”

  121. avatar

    i think it`s a great idea because if there is one government there isn`t the problem of the currency(euro) because the gov`t will do the good for all the people without differences between countries. GO UNITED STATES OF EUROPE IT`S OUR FUTURE( i think many guys like me really believe in a common brotherhood)

  122. avatar

    Too many people I’m affraid

    • avatar


  123. avatar

    saw the mess the french trucks drivers have to cope with ? the polish steal the job. they work for less and live on the highways, sleep in their trucks and therefore don’t have to pay any rent unlike the french (resident). I hate racism but unfortunately I totally understand that people become racist. you’re a citizen of a certain country and your government can’t even favor you ? why ? because you agree with the “european project” that allows any other “european” person to take your job, in your country. This is just one example among so many others. europe is an illusion. a dream that turned into a nightmare. the wrong belief that the dutch, the italian and the irish are alike. they don’t even have a common language.
    the skilled engineers and bankers can get a job wherever they want in europe. I’m ok with that… but the french truck driver has probably no other education nor any other language he can speak. once the polish steal his job… he has nothing left to do in his own country which in a shame !!!
    I’m not french btw. just using this example as an illustration to what is a complete failure. I mean europe.

  124. avatar

    What is the point in voting for and paying for UK Politicians that can only obey the Orders of Foreigners. Have any of you money enough to elect and pay two Governments (one that has to obey the other?) and can you afford to continue to pay for three Parliaments, TWO that has to obey the other one? Well i can’t especially as our own Common Law Constitution forbids us to-“…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.” Yup! All in a Constitution two World Wars were fought for TO KEEP.

  125. avatar

    The answer to all three questions is a straight up ‘NO!’
    Nonetheless I think a Federal Europe is the only way to go for our continent to SURVIVE as the world keeps changing and evolving. How are we going to compete and relate to things like the US, China, India, Brazil etc in the future?
    But if our European bureaucrats make another big mistake as they did with the euro’s setup… well we’re doomed then anyways. So let’s hope they make it quick but also well!

  126. avatar
    Jamshed Poonawalla

    We all need a multilingual networks of the chambered professions, the professional associations, and their democratically elected members in their professions. We need a European-social-court and we need Communication on European health insurances, and pensions, and social-insurances and their financing.

    Warum? Ich ärgere mich über diese GLEICHGÜLTIGKEIT darüber, dass die Rabattverträge nur innerhalb Deutschlands eine Rückvergütung auf Arzneimittel in geheimer Höhe mit sich bringen, während sich im Rest Europa die wirtschaftliche Lage der Sozialversicherungs-Systeme zuspitzt und es gleichzeitig nur an deutscher Kommunikation darüber fehlt, daß sich die Deutschen Apothekenaufschläge (8,35€, Notdienstgroschen, d.h. unser Taxe-VK usw) auf die Formel für die Berechnungen der Einkaufspreise der anderen Gesundheitssysteme auswirkt (Europäischer Referenzpreis ohne Rabatt-Rückvergütung).

    Die anderen haben in Europa keine Arbeitsplätze mehr, keine Altersvorsorge, keine Kredite, keine Gewerkschaften, keine Perspektive, keine Zukunft und kein Geld.

    Wir Ärzte und Apotheker können zum Teil sehen, woran das liegt, aber wir müssen Schweigen und sollen nicht gehört werden, weil die Medien nicht über die geheimen Rückvergütungen der Rabattverträge berichten sollen?

    Wir sollten weg vom nationalen Denken, hin zu einer gemeinsamen Sache für Europa. Dafür sollten wir alle einstehen.

    Ich bin selbst Apotheker und kann Ihnen versichern, dass dieses ganze Preis-Durcheinander mit Verkaufspreisen, Abrechnungspreisen, Erstattungspreisen, Aufschlägen, Deckelungen und geheimen (!) Rückerstattungsbeträgen nicht auf unserem Mist gewachsen ist.

    Warum haben die anderen Europäer keine Rabatt-Rückvergütung, und warum sollen die anderen Europäer 8,35€ + 0,16€ + deutsche MWSt19% usw pro Arznei-Packung mehr bezahlen, nur weil die Aufschläge der deutschen Apotheken in die Deutschen Taxe-VKs mit eingerechnet werden, und genau dieser deutsche Taxe-VK mathematisch als Berechnungsgrundlage für den Europäischen Referenzpreis dient?

    Eine solche Vorgehenseweise nutzt weder den Bürgern, noch der Politik, und auch nicht den Berufen. Es dient einzig und alleine der expandierenden Pharma-Industrie, denn die braucht für das identische Paket in einem anderen Land keine Rückvergütung an die anderen Gesundheitsdienste bezahlen. Es ist der Industrie egal, ob die genug Geld haben, solange der Euro-Rubel rollt.

    Ich hab ein schönes Zitat für Deutschland in Europa gefunden:
    “Denn wenn das Glück es so fügt: daß ein mächtiges und aufgeklärtes Volk sich zu einer Republik (die ihrer Natur nach zum ewigen Frieden geneigt sein muß) bilden kann, so gibt diese einen Mittelpunkt der föderativen Vereinigung für andere Staaten ab, um sich an sie anzuschließen, und so den Freiheitszustand der Staaten, gemäß der Idee des Völkerrechts, zu sichern, und sich durch mehrere Verbindungen dieser Art nach und nach immer weiter auszubreiten.“ (Immanuel Kant)

    Dazu braucht es aber Glück, den Willen dazu, Fachwissen, eine mächtige und einflussreiche Mannschaft, Gesetze, ein europäisches Sozialmandat und vielleicht aufgrund der Krisensituation sogar ein Sozialgericht auf EU-Ebene?

    Dieses ganze heute vorliegende Sprachendurcheinander ist auch nicht gerade förderlich im krisengeschüttelten Europa, denn für uns Europäer ist der gerechte Umbau der sozialen Sicherungssysteme konstitutiv, d.h. scheitern wir als Fachleute bei diesem Umbau hin zum Gerechteren, dann scheitert Europa.

    Wir brauchen ein mehrsprachiges Netzwerk der Kammerberufe!

    Wie sollte sowas auch aussehen? Wie http://www.Presseurop.eu ? Oder eine Art Telefon-Liste? Wie würde der Einfluss der Berufsvertretungen auf die nationalen politischen Parlamente messbar werden?

    Warum gibt es nur hier in Deutschland die Kammerberufe, aber in sogut wie jedem Staat neuartige ‘unheimliche’ Schatten-Strukturen wie in Deutschland das Young-Lions-Gesundheitsparlament?

    Die kritische Auseinandersetzung mit solchen Dingen sind absolut Basis-Anforderungen in Europa und auch das YL-Dingenskirchen strafen wir mit Ignoranz, als ob es nicht da wäre.

    Genau diese Strukturen sind aber die Satelliten des EU-Verwaltungs-Mutterschiffes in Brüssel.

    Das ist schlecht!

    Noch schlechter ist, dass darüber keiner kommuniziert!

    Die vom YL bekommen Redezeiten und befeuern den Wettbewerb ohne zu wissen, dass sie selbst als langer Arm der Industrie benutzt werden, plappern diese selbsternannten Fachleute das nach, was deren Geldgeber wollen.

    Es sind aber keine Fachleute und es ist eigentlich gut, dass die wichtigen vorhandenen Strukturen Deutschlands diese unheimlichen Strukturen ignorieren. Wir brauchen dieses YL nicht und wir wollen es nicht. Wir wollen mit denen nicht kommunizieren, weil wir Berufskammern in Deutschland haben!

    Wir brauchen nicht nur deswegen ein mehrsprachiges, funktionierendes Netzwerk der Kammerberufe aus Fachleuten und eben NICHT aus Funktionären!

    Dann erst wird einigen später auffallen, daß die Deutschen etwas anderes meinen, wenn die von ‘Sozial’ reden, als die Engländer, oder die Slawen, die Griechen, die Spanier usw…

    Der eine redet von “Sozial”, meint aber “Gesundheit”, während ein Dritter “Kommunismus” unter Sozial versteht.

    Mit diesen Probleme sollten wir in Europa umgehen lernen…

    Ich wünsche allen Lesern ein frohes Weihnachtsfest und ein gesundes, und unterm Strich pauschal gutes Jahr 2014.

  127. avatar
    Jamshed Poonawalla

    The most common mistake in Europe is, that somatotropin only the chambers of Commerce build a multilingual networks, but not the chambers of the professions themselves, like medical doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, architects, tax-advisors ect.

    If we start networking within the chambers of the professions, we all will be able to see more clearly the problems, that are existing silent everywhere, but nobody really wants to see.

    The Germans use the word “social”, but another European politician understands “health”, and a third one connect the word with communism…

    The valide of money still is very different everywhere. We need to communicate on that, too.

    Why should Germany pay “Hartz”-Money to people from other parts of europe, if the german value of money (Kaufkraft) is lower? The same amount of “Hartz-Money” can be worth a fortune in other parts of Europe, while in Germany you can hardly buy food and energy?

    We need to find solutions for these kind of problems without discriminating the ones in need, and we don’t need politician solutions, we need undestandable solutions, and therefore I’d suggest, that we need something like a European-Social-Court and social mandats for the EU, that that can reich into the national social fundings.

    This will never happen, if we don’t start communication on these uncomfortable topics, that no politician will ever dare to speak out.

    Nobody would vote for a politician that starts communication on these topics.

    Only the professions themselves can start this, and it is me greatest wish, that we all more than 500.000.000 Europeans start this communication within 2013.

    Maybe even today?


  128. avatar
    Todor Vasilev

    Very complicated question!I think the european nations are still not ready for such a thing!

  129. avatar
    Stefano Masia

    United States of Europe can exist only with the subsidiary principle, along with the empowerment of the local to assure a democratic governance at all levels

  130. avatar
    Katerina Kyriazi

    yep it is long overdue, this century will be competing among mega nations/alliances, only a USE can stand a chance against the new multi polar reality

  131. avatar
    Gena Lopes

    The union doesn’t work as it is now. something must change fast. A federation or a stronger union ( not a burocratic union) could be a solution. More fair between all countries. Difficult to put it on now . But better than to see the old good Europe eated by it self…

  132. avatar
    Patrick Vande Walle

    As soon as possible, but only with those countries absolutely willing to join in and give in a part of their sovereignty.

  133. avatar
    Saviour Cachia

    What will be the difference? Mlore or less the European Union works on the same lines as USA, the difference is that the President of the EU is not elected by the european citizens but from the MEPS. Should there be more devolution of power, and why having the national governments, elect a European Chancellor? Should all the rules of the UE be regulatory and mandatory or each Government have the right to adhere or not to certain proposals, like England did with the Euro,or delicate matters like abortion, and still free to accept or not the responibility of burden sharing with regards to irregular immigrants? I vouch for independent european nations showing subsidiarity in European matters and working out together without impinging the rights of individual member states. Do we already live such reality or should strenghten our bond together, li big euro powers not suffocating the small countries or island, like Malta, which for use remain first and foremost.

  134. avatar
    Orhan Kaymaz

    May be we need one strong voice in foreign policy and some sort of coordination when it comes to important decisions in finance and economy but I don’t think we as general want to have a united states of europa, than this means making europa more a project of aristocrats and not a project of ordinary people, causes alienation and rises question around why we should make Brussel more powerful than needed.

  135. avatar
    Makis Mjt

    no its not a time becouse this EU is not the EU for the citizens of europe but for the markets and the strong countries. if EU change the USE will be the next good step for all the people of EU.

  136. avatar
    Patrice Puchaux

    I hope it will be! But for the moment it is too early. Some of our countries are in difficult situation in economy and politic. We have to reinforce our countries and the euro before. All countries have to use euro as well before.

  137. avatar
    Ingrid Ajangu

    Monetary union without political union does not work- as decades have proven by now. EU is facing crisis that cannot be ended without more political integration and that cannot happen as long as central governments have their own way. Political Union could be the only way how to make people proud of Europe again, establish the basic values of EU, equality to name one, and to end the crisis.

    • avatar
      gonçalo punza

      Indeed that will be a greet jump for Europe, but in my point of view is a litle early and premature speeking about this matter. There are a few things that have to change in EU.

  138. avatar
    Michael Smith

    If we do that we give the Nazi exactly what they envisioned, first as a European Economic Community from which a USE was to emerge. May the gods help us…

  139. avatar
    James Stevens

    NEVER! The EU is the greatest threat to democracy and freedom since Communist Russia. A Socialist Superstate or EUSSR or USE will lead to war and conflict in Europe, the EU is failing and the people are tiring.

    • avatar

      happy to find out there still are smart and realistic people. thanks for your post.

  140. avatar
    Giannhs Panourhs

    It is time… We really can’t afford any delay. All of you who think the opposite should just consider the broader economic reallity (globalization) and how we can fight alone (as small states)… We should all work together, mobilise investments in a pan-european level, innovate, coordinate taxation so that dumping stops etc…

    • avatar

      there’s no way Imma pay taxes for poorer states in the eu. no way.

  141. avatar
    Borislav Valkov

    Corruption is still a major problem for countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Greece…
    Banks and mobile telephone companies are offering products that are more expensive then that on the their rivals in central or west europe….
    In general I believe there shoud be a better monitoring(and a better punishment clauses) on the bazzars and parliament activities from the european commision then a building of united states!

    • avatar

      if they were elected, YOU WOULD STILL BE AGAINST THEM. OR AGAINST ANY KIND OF PAN-EUROPEAN efford. you think europe can survive and prosper being divided? this is not the 15TH OR 19TH CENTURY BUT THE 21ST CENTURY.

  142. avatar
    Michele Browne

    If you could get everyone to agree, maybe. But that’s never going to happen is it. The USA government is permanently based in Washington DC. Whereas the EU prefers to spend Euro 150,000 million of our money a year moving between 2 locations. A recent vote for a permanent base was lost. The only thing the EU is good for us feathering the nests of Eurocrats, they only agree when they benefit.

  143. avatar
    Lígia M Mesquita

    No, the EU countrys aren’t states, they can’t be comprehended as such. Maybe it’s time instead for Brussels to stop acting as bankers and start working on the potential of a strong EU market.
    You better start working soon, we aren’t as naive as our parents were.

    • avatar

      they weren’t naive. they were hopeful that by now we would have a United europe maybe a confederation, with the same level of life and international weight as australia or canada, wich are prosperous countries. but a lot of people prefer to go back to the past – AGAIN, like the bankers or even the average people..

  144. avatar
    Nico Hajrahmatollahi

    I hope, the states buildung the European Union today will understand that working together on common aims with common values is the only way of speaking with a strong voice in the world. Unfourtanetly, today there isn’t the possibility and the wish for the United States of Europe. Critics are right with their arguments on the different languages and the different systems of their economy, but the motto of the European Union still is “United in diversity” and I believe in this words, because from our prosperous and highly educated continent we can help other states and continents to build up well-working cooperations with each other. It’s time for more coopertaion, more democracy, more solidarity. A stronger European Parliament, a direct-elected Commission President and a chamber build of all member states is the right way towards the United States of Europe (USE). Our task should be winning confidence by the youths and especially the poors. Thanks Debating Europe for this opportunities to have an open debate on the most important topics in our common future!

  145. avatar
    Alberto Buttini

    I think so. It’s the right moment to create a federation… But I think peoples are not ready for that and so, in my opinion the European Politics must convince them to unite. Pluribus unum, Carpe Diem

  146. avatar
    Kaj Lindgren

    The European Union?s role as an international actor must be strengthened and the Union?s common foreign and security policy must be made a reality.

  147. avatar
    Diogo Maia E Silva

    Despite potentially advantageous for Europe as a whole (otherwise each individual country has not enough political or economical power to face China or USA), the Union shall never be possible while different countries have such different views on the purpose of the EU. Besides, nationalist movements are escalating in empoverished countries and anti-EU parties (extreme right mostly) have stronger and stronger expression in rich countries, such as Austria or the UK. Many cultural, linguistic, educational and economical barriers must be overcome.

  148. avatar
    Eli Dirkx

    Depends; who’s demanding it, the tax hogs in the European Parliament or the people that they’re supposed to speak for?

  149. avatar
    Carmen Rodica

    OLD SUPREMACY HABITS DIE HARD… therefore none of the former empires will ever give up hegemonic hopes

  150. avatar
    Ștefan Bădiță

    no. i don’t agree this. we must not be a federation ;) UNITATE N DIVERSITATE!!!! Let’s stick to this ;)

  151. avatar
    Andrea Tuswald

    all the people saying yes should inform themselves about the goals of the EU, but not in censored state media. the internet provides good “alternative” websites. you might be frightened then.

  152. avatar
    Matt Dovey

    Have any of you been to the United States? The eu will never be as free and democratic as the us.
    The soon the eu is finished the better

  153. avatar
    Kilian Tep

    In terms of political effectiveness, it’s crucial that the EU becomes the USE. That must be done gradually, however. That is not something we can implement without a majority willing to follow that direction. Such projet would imply that we first create an actual European culture, which is currently inexistent.

  154. avatar
    Marty Illingworth

    Yes, I believe that a USN based on a federal style with the current national borders as States, will work. Europe should also protect its cultural diversity so the states are able to keep their national identity. So each state should teach its own history and language as a first language and from early primary teach a second European language.

  155. avatar

    I dont want USE, I want Republic of Europe. The solution is simple – if we become one nation – the Europeans, our nationalists will love their nation and start to focus on hating other immigrants, since thats what they do. They have little brains and their only goal is to hate on something, might as well be africans or arabs. So there it is than, no more problems. Nationalism is so silly anyways.

  156. avatar
    Vasilis Kiliaris

    The aim should be a vote, on the upcoming EuroParliament elections, based on European standards !

    How to avoid , or at least minimize, an election debate in terms of internal political situation, rather than exchange of arguments based on a European issues level, which will deductively link the Big Picture with each microEuropean entity, namely Europe as a community, ideology, sui generis case of international organization, and each Member State, such as Greece or Cyprus.

    For example, if we accept Europe as a special federal arrangement, or having a prospect for a future Federation, then candidate MEPs and their supporting party or coalition, should argue on their competitive advantage over their opponents, which could result positively to their national interest or on a paneuropean level. Similarly, if we remove the federal dimension, and approach United Europe as a field / partnership forum or confrontation of sovereign European states, we should repeat the same question, in this new context.

  157. avatar

    The British people cannot remain in an EU nor accept a specialy federal State or arrangement because ALL the British people which includes all those in both
    Houses of Parliament would be in violation of the solemn Oaths of Allegiance to the British Crown. In other words it would be TREASON. Our Constitution make clear, that, FORBIDS us to and “…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.” There is no way we can encourage in any way (Which also means encouraging via our taxes being used towards or encouraging FOREIGNERS making our laws that even our own Governments would have to obey) at all towards foreigners Governing our Country. The people of this Country have been to war twice to prevent foreigners governing us, I pray our Government realises it is indeed time now to repudiate all EU Treaties and set us free to govern ourselves.

  158. avatar
    Anonymous Brit

    It is most certainly time for a federal Europe. The benefits of such a system counter the drawbacks on a truly huge scale. The arguments against are largely based on a platform that is already false, or old prejudices. Take for example the idea that the EU dictates to the nation state. Absolutely false. This is because people believe that the commission is the most powerful body in the EU, this supposedly undemocratic body (it is somewhat democratic given that our governments, who are elected, appoint members to it, as a UK citizen with an unelected hose of lords I can’t complain) tells the nation states what to do. This is not true, the commission proposes legislation, it does not pass it. I’ll say it clearly, the European Commission cannot pass legislation. That is the job of the council of ministers. Who is in the council of ministers? Our heads of state. That’s right Euroskeptics, the most powerful body in the EU is in fact the nation state, as no law gets passed without every national leader agreeing to it. The UK may well not get a say in matters concerning the Eurozone, but that was our choice, in fact everything has been our choice. No doubt Euroskeptics find all this to be very undemocratic, but we do not, nor does any other nation, live in a democracy. We in the UK live in a constitutional monarchy, we elect people to make decisions on our behalf, if we made all the decisions, the UK would rip itself apart within a week. Ironically, the EU offers the UK far more in the way of democracy than our own parliament, the reason is simple. In the EU’s sovereignty (or power) lies with the people, as it does in France (the EU being based on the French model), whereas power in Britain does not lie with people, nor does not lie with the crown in some symbolic sense, it lies with parliament. Within that the PM has a vast amount of power. The UK is one of, if not the most, centralized power in the free world. So if you fear a centralized government, then you would be far better voting for a federal EU than hoping Parliament will reform.

    The combined wealth, military strength, experience, and workforce of a federal EU would make Europe a superpower the moment we all agreed. And in this world where size matters, we need it. We could not compete otherwise, the BRICS are already overtaking most of Europe, Brazil overtook Britain in 2013 (economically), and is on the brink of overtaking France. The EU, if taken as a whole, stands above every nation on earth, trillions ahead of the USA. I could go on in this direction, but I wanted to address the euroskeptic argument here in the UK. Primarily because their entire argument is based on a lie. I can’t blame people for being euroskeptic in the UK though, as everything, our tv, newspapers, radio, magazines, our entire media’s reporting on Europe is pitiful, too much attention is given to the skeptics and…not once have I seen any sort of factual reporting on how the EU works to counter it. The people of Britain are good and honest people, but if a people only receive bad information then…well, what do you expect. The most important thing in a democracy is a well informed electorate, and sadly few people in the UK are informed where this is concerned. That’s why, despite the benefits, nations like the UK will not guarantee their own future by saying yes to a federal Europe.

    European nations would suffer a fate worse than death if we didn’t agree to a federal Europe, we would suffer from obscurity. We Europeans have always counted for something on the world stage, its not in our nature to be followers. But now we are risking it, for the sake of historic, in some cases ancient, rivalries, and petty flag waving.

  159. avatar

    Now WHO exactly came up with the legislation re the control of our water and the tragic mess we are in today here in the UK? You see Anonymous Brit, it is European Water NOW. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into force in December 2000 and became part of UK law in December 2003. It provides an opportunity to plan and deliver a better water environment, focussing on ecology. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33362.aspx
    Farmers outraged as Agency prepared to auction dredging kit. http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Farmers-outraged-Agency-prepared-auction-dredging/story-20634505-detail/story.html
    With the fiasco that is on going at present-was it worth turning out to vote for anyone here in the UK House of Commons? Did they REALLY not dredge because of EU Legislation as reported in one Newspaper?

    Let us see Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy”. Oh! And by the way, it is “European Union WATER” now and apparently has been for some time. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:NOT
    WHICH ALSO READS “(10) The Council on 25 June 1996, the Committee of the Regions on 19 September 1996, the Economic and Social Committee on 26 September 1996, and the European Parliament on 23 October 1996 all requested the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for a European water policy.”
    And there is a lot more. However, THE PEOPLE of the UK will have a say in 2015 and as we now know-WITHOUT DOUBT- THAT ALL THREE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES WANT TO REMAIN IN THE EU-FOREVER, we are going to only vote for any Organisation or Political Party that wants OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION-FOREVER. Maybe the people of other Countries trapped in the EU, may also want to do the same when their general elections take place?

  160. avatar

    The EU should have flexibility in its approach; those countries that want a full fiscal, monetary and political union should do it. Those that don’t should if they wish to stay in the club but maintain some independence or fully exit. If the ambition of Brussels is a federal Europe, the reality is going to be mixed opinion. If and when a country is ready to opt in, or out for that matter, there should be that freedom. I can’t see it potentially manifest any other way. Being politically forceful will fuel resentment and anti EU agendas.

  161. avatar

    To Anonymous Brit, The United Kingdom has fought in two World Wars to prevent foreigners from Governing us. Many, oh so many people died in those two World Wars and now weak British Politicians are prepared to pay foreigners-allegedly forever, to govern this Country yet still believe they could keep a “Government” here in the UK still. We even have an extra layer of EU Governance set up by none other than the present Prime Minister namely the 12 EU REGIONS so desired by te EU and its Committee of the REGIONS.

  162. avatar

    This below is going through our Parliament at present. If YOU, and I mean EACH of you do not stop your representatve from voting for it, there will be no point in voting or PAYING any British MP again, for the EU will SPEAK for all its Nation States to the US of A-forever.
    Each and every one of us are paying our government through our Taxes to give our Country away-this through the treacherous proposed EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) where the EU speaks for ALL the Country’s in it to the USA. Yet not just about FOOD TRADE, which many may think at first, but TRADE in ALL matters. Everything and anything you can think of-for all time. It is no wonder there are so many EU Restricted Documents. What on earth will be the point of having a British Government when they cannot speak for themselves?
    It doesn’t just stop there though. Dated 10.3.2014 Top European lawmakers from Germany’s Green Party leaked a confidential document last Friday (7 March) regarding talks over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), arguing that the disclosure is in the “public interest” and for the “protection of democracy”.

    On Friday (7 March), high-ranking German MEPs from the European Greens leaked a confidential document from the Council of Ministers regarding the ongoing TTIP negotiations. “TTIP threatens to take away democracy’s means for social and environmental management of the internal market,” Green MEP Sven Giegold warned, defending the decision to publish the document.
    I ask, Is this Government or any British Government prepared to pay to give the Governing of this, their own Country away FOREVER? When so many gave THEIR lives for OUR FREEDOM? However, this is a TREATY, a Treaty that is supposed to be forever, and without doubt the people MUST have a say.
    Demand, if this Government does not reject this TREATY, that it is put before the people to have a REFERENDUM on it. PLEASE look this whole TTIP for yourselves.

  163. avatar

    NO! Stop the Euro and the entire European Community that has only survived because of its excuse of economic advantage. Bring back the right of choice and cultural identity of which we have almost none left, and stop pretending we as a people have influence on plans that have already been set out for us, we’re not as dumb as you think. Say no.

  164. avatar

    We want European Union to become common country and to enlargement. We want United States of Europe now! We want EU to make economy-political-defense union right now, and to become common-single country, liberal country, who protect the personal freedoms.

  165. avatar

    This is the official page of the project “United States of Europe” The change from the European Union to one State! [Language: English, German, French]]

    United States of Europe

    Various versions of the concept have developed over the centuries, many of which are mutually incompatible (inclusion or exclusion of the United Kingdom; secular or religious union, etc.). Such proposals include those from King George of Podebrady of Bohemia in 1464; the Duc de Sully of France in the seventeenth century; and the plan of William Penn, the Quaker founder of Pennsylvania, for the establishment of an “European Dyet, Parliament or Estates.”

    George Washington wrote to the Marquis de La Fayette: “One day, on the model of the United States of America, a United States of Europe will come into being.”

    20th century
    Following the catastrophe of the First World War, some thinkers and visionaries again began to float the idea of a politically unified Europe. In 1923, the Austrian Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the Pan-Europa movement and hosted the First Paneuropean Congress, held in Vienna in 1926. The aim was for a specifically Christian Europe.[citation needed] In contrast Trotsky raised the slogan “For a Soviet United States of Europe” in 1923, for a non-Christian but communist Europe.

    In 1929, Aristide Briand, French Prime Minister, gave a speech in the presence of the League of Nations Assembly in which he proposed the idea of a federation of European nations based on solidarity and in the pursuit of economic prosperity and political and social co-operation. Many eminent economists, among them John Maynard Keynes, supported this view. At the League’s request Briand presented a Memorandum on the organisation of a system of European Federal Union in 1930.

    “The United States of Europe” was also the title of two books published in 1931: by French politician Édouard Herriot and by British civil servant Arthur Salter.

    During the World War II victories of Nazi Germany in 1940, Wilhelm II stated that: “The hand of God is creating a new world & working miracles…. We are becoming the United States of Europe under German leadership, a united European Continent.”

    The term “United States of Europe” was used by Winston Churchill in his speech delivered on 9 September 1946 at the University of Zürich, Switzerland.[5] In this speech given after the end of the Second World War, Churchill concluded that:
    “ We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. ”

    In this speech, Churchill does not comment on his earlier disapproval of British involvement in a European community. Before the Second World War, Churchill favoured an isolationist attitude towards continental Europe. On 15 February 1930, Churchill commented in the American journal The Saturday Evening Post that a European Union was possible between continental states but without Britain’s involvement:
    “ We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.”

    Churchill’s was a more cautious approach (“unionist position”) to European integration than was the continental approach that was known as the “federalist” position.[8] The federalists advocated full integration with a constitution, while the Unionist United Europe Movement advocated a consultative body, and the federalists prevailed at the Congress of Europe. The primary accomplishment of the Congress of Europe was the European Court of Human Rights, which predates the European Union.

    During the debt crisis of European countries – it was the public in autumn 2009 by the Greek financial crisis deliberately – the term is often used.

  166. avatar

    Soon, all those we “freely” elect at present to “allegedly” govern us will realise that they will ALL be redundant.

  167. avatar

    It’s so obvious that the ones who are in favor of a united states of europe are citizens of southern european countries (struggling financially on debts and growth and politic stability and so on and so on).
    Those poor countries would benefit from a single country.

    It’s so easy to mix-up all the debts in a single one. So much easier to have the successful countries bear the all weight and consequences of those who are unable to mount to nothing.

    You think german people are willing to be considered equal to greeks or french ?!

    NO!!! the only reason great leaders like the germans are ok to stay among the eu is because southern still developping countries are a mess and help keep the common currency more or less weak against other currencies so they can keep exporting their goods for cheap worldwide !!!!

    Open your eyes !!!!!
    Nobody wants to be part of such a mess and nightmare of our generation !!!!!

    No one except the ones who could take advantage of strong countries since they are so screwed in their own !!!!

    think about it !!! Germans don’t want greece to leave the eu. They help them but with no enthusiasm knowing this country is a lost cause. So they’re reluctant to say yes to eurobonds which would dilluate the debts of poor countries !!!!
    On the other hand they help them just enough to keep them as a tool to keep the EUR weak.

    • avatar

      I don’t understand are you saying that all northerners are selfish and xenophobic? because that’s how it sounded.
      Furthermore this ‘debt’ is owed TO german banks, if Greece says “Halt!” Germany COLLAPSES, and Ms merkel KNOWS it.
      That’s why we need to move quickly towards federalization.

      You don’t see this much crying in the US over who bails out which state. It is like a household – the FAMILY is together and manages its finances TOGETHER.
      Jeez, almost 80 years and Europe is STILL plagued by this mindless selfishness and nationalism.

  168. avatar

    Sadly our elected MP’s are continuing to pay to give their Country away to foreigners. The reject their very own Common law Constitution that so many gave their lives for. The betray their Monarch, they betray all the people that voted for them and pay them to actually Govern the United Kingdom, which they can no longer do. Sadly, it is not just one Political Party that has done these vile deeds but all three Political Parties, yet still some people of the United Kingdom will continue to vote for THEIR Political Party in the General election of 2015 putting their allegiance to those that betray their Oaths to the British Crown before those that want freedom from foreign rule of their own Country. However, all will eventually reap what they sow.

  169. avatar

    The Emblem and Flag of England. 23.4.2014

    Hold high the Flag of England,
    Let it flutter in the breeze,
    In honour of our fighting forces,
    In those far off foreign fields.
    Hoist with pride the Flag of England,
    On this St George’s Day,
    Wipe not away those gentle tears
    That fall on tender cheeks today.

    Remember too the Rose of England,
    Our National Emblem worn with pride,
    A tender Rose of magnificent beauty,
    In remembrance of those that died
    So far away in distant countries,
    Their loved ones way back home,
    We’ll hold high the Flag of England,
    And wear with pride the English Rose.

  170. avatar

    The failure of the euro was because of the independent governments and fiscal policies.
    Smaller nations like Greece borrowed on Germany’s credit which caused the downfall of the currency.
    A USE would prevent such downfalls from happening again.
    A successful Euro requires combined nation or it’ll be crisis after crisis.

    • avatar

      and misery after misery increase..even whitout the euro

  171. avatar

    I think the European Union should most definitely become one harmonious super-country, but if they call it the ‘United States of Europe’ i’m moving to South America and pretending Europe never existed, seriously

  172. avatar
    isn't it high time we start asking questions ?

    Don’t you people realise what’s happened and what is happening right now ? Get some knowledge people.. Did you not understand that you are not electing your leaders ? That your vote doesn’t count for a thing.. I don’t suspect many of you have heard of Jordan Maxwell or listened to him but go ahead and open your eyes! It is high time we wake up and stop being blinded by all the crap that is served to us on the daily! Banks are not there for what you thing they are , governments don’t work the way you think they work! Churches are not what you think they are! Research and read and study the law! We all are pure stock bought by the bank! Regardless of who you voted for the winner is already known way before your votes.. Government gets what it paid for and Government doesn’t make mistakes! You do what they want you to do. Wake up people it is time for a change! Spread the word!

  173. avatar

    No. Even now Europe doesn’t make any sense apart from making it easy for european countries with good economies to suck the smaller countries with the help of common currency. Who are we kidding? Ask people in Germany, England or Greece how they feel about europe and you will hear 3 different opinions. In this world as we know it USE would only serve the rich countries and we all know which one most of all. UK was smart not to involve so much with the rest of us. If you really want to have an objective opinion about United Stated of Europe I’d recommend you take some time and money and relocate to another european country for some years. Only then you’ll feel to your bones that Europe is a big bubble and not so romantic as we thought.

  174. avatar

    Yes. We have gone to far to let it all go now! Russia and China are awakening! it is time us to take a brave step forward and compete with them to preserve world peace! America is prone to fail sooner or later, and when they are gone who will be left to stop China and Russia, only we citizens of a Federal States of Europe! but for this we must accept our religious, political, cultural differences and joins together in every aspect. It’s time for us to become a Super Nation. For when America fall’s and they will, the world’s eyes will turn to us to save them from Chinese-Russian dictatorship and supremacy. We are Europe and Europe and the world need us to take the world’s fate in our hand’s. I say we must become the United States of Europe, the peacekeepers of our planets fate. One government, one army and above all one nation!

    • avatar
      Steve P

      HAHAHAHHAHA superstate thats funny ,the EU wont be here in 5 years i hope its a joke and i for one want no part in its pathetic controlling rubbish.Hopefully us in the UK will be out of it soon and free from its grip

  175. avatar
    bob jones

    There are a few things that concern me about the EU
    1) It’s only recently are those in leadership openly admitting that the aim all along was to create a ‘United States of Europe’. Had this been explicitly communicated in the 80’s and 90’s i don’t that it would have been allowed to progress to where it is now.
    2) There is an elected parliament but the real power belongs to those who are not elected, . Again those who are in power do not appear interested in diminishing the power of the comission and increasing the political and law making abilities of the parliament.
    3) I think right now that a waiting game is happening, national and EU leaders who are in support of the USE are waiting for the right opportunity and situation that will allow the USE to be created without obstacle. I have no doubt that lessons were learned from the failed constitution attempt a few years ago, and that a way of pushing through the creation of the USE without national referendums is being crafted, especially since the obvious rise in europscepticism since the 2014 election.

  176. avatar

    I think that the United States of Europe is a good idea for some stage in the future. I think things might be changing a little too quickly for some people and some states need some more time to catch up others economically speaking. Overall continued integration is a positive thing in my opinion because a more cooperative Europe is a stronger Europe.

  177. avatar

    No Europe sould not unite into one country, we are not the US, we have different cultures, languages, lifestyles and member states and are already interconnected so why become a whole country? Every European country has his own history and traditions thus nationalism is quite strong in many eu countries which will make it hard to be one country.

    • avatar

      not one country, but a political union of several countries. that’s what should be done. if there are some inteligente people in europe, that is

    • avatar
      Stephen Pockley

      So Dina what would that solve,also have you not seen what a mess they are making of the Euro and you want to integrate further.

  178. avatar

    The eu faces many challenges and has many problems, but we are far better off with the EU than we are with out it. Converting, remodling the EU can be hard and pointless. Rather stick and modify our current system to the better and unify Europe even more.

    • avatar
      Stephen Pockley

      Unify Europe further tell that to Greece who technical now have been taken over totally by this Europe you talk of that were better off having than not.

  179. avatar

    First of all, we should not try to be one as we are all different countries with different cultures. As my friend Samantha once mentioned (God rest her in peace),you cannot force a group of people with different ideas and beliefs to be one. Why is this different? Why make the same mistake as america, we all know how that ended. The people are not happy with the curtent system. We should keep our ancestry and be proud of it.

    • avatar

      You so right!!!!!!!!!! Lol

  180. avatar
    Fast and Furious 7 online

    The movie review paper should be composed in such a
    way that it touches and gets to the intended audience. Sometimes,
    depending on the store, they offer free shipping as long as your area is within their scope of delivery.
    Windows Movie Maker debuted in 2000, bundled with
    the Windows ME operating system.

  181. avatar

    Two World Wars have been fought to prevent foreigners Governing us-yet STILL certain continental Country’s want to Govern ALL.

    If the EU is ever to become one States of European Union-there is no need for ANY Members of any National Parliaments and certainly no need of any National Governments.

    • avatar

      “Two World Wars have been fought to prevent foreigners Governing us” self centered much? Europe needs to unite, the values of people living here are similar and chances are you have more in common with some random dannish/german/french etc. conservative/leftist then with a fellow countrymen that has different values then yourself. (for example – religious vs. non religious, nationalists vs. multiculturalist, environmentalists vs Jeremy Clarkson etc.) In fact USA has been running the show even tho the difference between a New Yorker, Californian or someone from mid-west is huge. They are strong because they are United, each state for it self would be weak. IMO the whole lot should unite so we can work for the common goals, like how not to fuck up the planet and live in poverty. Pretty much all young people speak English anyways so language barrier no longer exists. Give us a banner so nationalists have something to die for (aka kill people) and its all fine. By all means, if English think they are superior and better on their own, you guys should leave the EU and good luck. Nobody would force you to join our new Reich…pardon union.

    • avatar

      exactly the opposite, there will be more reazons to national parlyaments and governments… (it seems you are talking about am empire and not about a federal or confederal political union)

    • avatar
      Stephen Pockley

      So please tell me why it’s selfish tell that to the hundreds of thousands of British have died fightin to keep ourselves free you talk foolishly .So you also admit that the EU is all consuming and national sovereignty counts for nothing.I agree Britain should leave before this cult collapses totally because it will.As for how much we have in common with other people then ofcourse we do ,but that doesn’t mean we have to be one,if you think we can then you are deluded I’m afraid.

  182. avatar

    The future is yours. You either pay for two full to the brim Houses in our UK Parliament that have to obey (Sorry, have to PAY FOREIGNERS TO GOVERN THIS COUNTRY-forever), or you make sure those you elect and pay actually Govern ALL in the UK according to its very long standing Common Law Constitution. There is absolutely no point at all in having anyone in those two Houses of Parliament when even THEY have to obey the orders of foreigners.

  183. avatar

    I feel in the great europe we didnt succed in the past becouse we fight between us. We have to unite to return to europe the glory that it needs. I dont want to be the dog from usa

    • avatar
      Steve P

      No thank you i do not want any part in this pathetic project.The UK is stronger on its own were we will not be burdened with every other EU countries scroungers.I have NO affection for the EU and many of my fellow country people dont either ,we are totally sick of un controlled immigration.Also as far as stronger together i fail to see how because all that is happening now is that all other countries hate each other.

    • avatar
      Niciara Andrei

      yes that’s right we are like dogs the united states of america it’s time to be one. and forget the differences

  184. avatar

    All this Country truly needs is a new and GREAT Prime Minister, and one that can truly Govern this Country according to its very own Long standing Common law Constitution and “According to Law”, which ALL would be MP’s so swear before they may take up their seats in that House of Commons even though some people have freely elected them and sadly the last truly GREAT Prime Minister we had was the one we had brought us through that last terrible War when ALL the odds were against him and us. Most of those some have elected-NO, NOT ME- sadly are willing to PAY foreigners to Govern us-which will be FOREVER if we do not get out of the EU very soon. Seek to find what the EU already has ready for 2020, 2030 and even some for 2050. Search for, State of the European Union 2015, A democratic and competitive Union that works for all citizens. See state-of-the-european-union-2015.pdf

    • avatar
      Stephen Pockley

      The EU can go to hell get us out.

  185. avatar
    Max Briston

    There are several reason why the EU should create a federal union.

    1) People are always blabbing on about how the Euro is a failure. And in some ways they are not wrong. When a monetary union is put in place, there has to be a fiscal union otherwise the union has different nations working a different economic rates in terms of levels of debt, spending, etc. BUT if we were to unite fiscally we can unite spending and debt levels thus stopping the ‘two speed Europe’ problem that is currently being causes.

    15/12/2015 Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform (CER), has responded to this comment.

    15/12/2015 Dr. Tom Casier, Academic Director of the Brussels School of International Studies of the University of Kent, has responded to this comment.

    • avatar
      Max Briston

      2) Security. If we have a united Military and Foreign policy we can have a massive military spending. Bigger Army = More Power, More Power = More Wealth, More Wealth = Higher Standard of Living. Simple

    • avatar
      Stephen Pockley

      Hi Max
      I’m not aware of what country you are from but I can tell you right now the UK will never go for a doomed project like that we value our heritage far too much to surrender that way to the Germans and French.What we want is trade only diversity never works.
      Also an EU army so it can be used to bully national states into doing what it is told that was the Nazi dream also you clearly have never served in the military to make a comment like that because no way on earth would British soldiers take orders from French and German officers,because our oath is to Queen & Country never the EU the thought makes me laugh what next you want rid of our Royal family too.

  186. avatar

    Why the english people hate europe?

  187. avatar

    A long time ago when the Berlin WALL was still up, I visited, along with members of the British Army, that had to be in Army Dress, both East and West Berlin. We had a meal in one Hotel in East Berlin and then a tour round in part of East Berlin. Not a soul about yet all street lights lit, but not a movement in the streets-only our solitary vehicle.

  188. avatar
    person from eurasia

    the UK was great in size but small in mind. the UK and the EU have all small minds. you refuse to see the cyclical mistakes of your past..and therefore you will be smashed by both your past and your future

    the real kicker is that you both have na enormouus potential together. but alone, like you like, you are and will be nothing

  189. avatar

    Europe needs further integration. To not only tackle many modern problems far more quickly and efficiently but also to compete in the 21st century with companies in the huge single markets of China and the United States. Being able to grow much faster in their huge internal markets Europe desperetelly needs the huge single market of its own.

    Including 1 tax system, 1 system of laws, 1 patent system (among other things). While the single EU patent system is on it`s way (2017) and more laws are converging, a single tax system and single structure for corporation is still a long way off. Europe needs to move ahead on integration now to secure more jobs and more economic prosperity.

    Another option or likely development is that some nations in this process will integrate more and others will not integrate fully depending on the topics. In any such case Europe should create a single system for corporation in terms of taxes and regulations so that even without becoming a country Europe can become massively more competitive. The coming single Patent system is a good beginning. The new single Banking Union now in place is also a huge step forward for overal transparency and especially economic wide stability. Hugely important for innovation, start-ups, investors, etc and thus in helping further grow Europe`s competitiveness.

    And lets not forget even countries like Switserland and Norway are now so integrated in EU laws that they are basically semi EU countries but without voting power. From environmental rules, to a single energy market to common overal standards, integration is accelerating because it just makes economic, business and security sense. Further integration is thus becoming a self fulfilling propecy. The past problems like with the Euro crises and the immigration crises has only accelrated instead of halted that. And as more Europeans get used to European laws and regulation and discussions it seems more people are starting to feel European despite a large group of critics. Even 12 years ago most people and including the European media did not pay almost any attention to European issues. This has completely changed.

    As the famous Ghandi once said. “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

    Lets nor forget the Holy Roman Empire existed for an incredible 500 years across Europe and without modern tools for communication. Large parts of it even lasted for 1500 years. It seems a new, modern and perhaps permanent version is now beginning to emerge.

  190. avatar

    How many of you visited Berlin while “The Wall” was still up? Visiting East Berlin as well as West Berlin? Well, I did. And some sill want a “United States of Europe”?

  191. avatar

    Nation-states as Europe is made of, by history, and by culture, are hampered by such parochial interests, in the long run, especially if they are small in relative size, and population. How much concentrated power can any one state exert when philosophically bound by those interests? The momentum gravitates toward the status quo, not change.

    Change occurs from experimental integration where disparate cultures and philosophies must seek an equitable plane upon which all disparities may be acknowledged, altered, and converted into a uniquely sculptured entity that encompasses the whole, or it is resigned to integral pieces of the puzzle never constructed. Without sufficient physical borders to separate them, do the nation-states of Europe have a choice but to integrate its peoples, organized for global business and global power?

    If it occurred, who would lead such a sculptured entity as the EU to enable it to satisfy all? These are monumental considerations that must be reconciled!

    • avatar

      they are not so disparate cultures ,they are all similar western cultures – diferente but similar, with a lot in common. at least in the western part.
      eastern europe is another matter..

    • avatar

      Really @Dina?
      Dog pilling on eastern Europe again?

      You sink that low?

  192. avatar
    jack good

    im from the UK and I think its about time we joined together if we don’t its just waiting until Asian and African population boost and economy to develop until were surpassed by them completely

    • avatar

      well … african people, asian people, english people, I don’t feel any closer to you because I live in France or Germany. I love the uk but I hate the ideanof europe. You just a FOREIGNER like the african or the asian. No common value, no same native language, nothing that make feel even a bit like you, so no need to unit with foreigners to get better than…. others foreigners, no affection for the the other countries in europe. No need to get more united within the antidemocratic eu.

    • avatar

      i’m surprised that a british would support unification ideas..but you must be one of the minority ..unfortunately it is too late. it was too late already when i started to support it 30 years ago..

    • avatar

      Unfortunately that is Göring to happen. People seem to miss the Hatred and wars of the past. They are killing their Owen future.with help from outside.

  193. avatar

    No common values? that’s crazy and false. but ok, then if you prefer to have a future with poverty, squalor, hate and disease and no future for europeans including YOU and your FAMILY…by all means keep thinking that ,have a nice extinction. ps-maybe you should taught your daugters to speak arab and use an hijab. this EU may be BAsd but having no EU at all will be worse. count on it.

    • avatar

      rofl . so please go
      ahead and tell me about some real common values. and please don’t come with some copy/paste rubbish stuffs from wilipedia or some pro antidemocratic european website….. because I’m fed of those made up values they are just lies for credulous people.

      Becoming poor ?! EU is making people poorer. Please do yourself and your folks a favor and o-pen-your-eyes…. take a recent example…. the Eu is willing to get closer to ukraine… it gives you an idea of how poor and “little” the european idea is.
      millions of ukrainian will probably end up being granted freedom of movement within the eu. what a great added values !!!!! more poor people free to establish themselves in our countries… at least you will know why you pay taxes for. not to mention that the dutch said NO to that trash deal and the EU is going forward anyway. Democracy they said ?

      Finally and when it comes to hijab…. well that may be the only thing u
      and me do have in common…. I don’t want it… the only way to stop it is to give power back to sovereign countries to address that threat instead of expecting brussel to take a stand for all
      eu countries because they’ll
      do the only thing they know: take weak and uneffective decisions. My daughter ain’t gonna wear that because MY country won’t allow it but yours may well end up wear it because clowns in
      brussels will
      dictate you do so! count on it pal.

    • avatar

      common values are presente throought the western world. and don’t make confusion, i defende european integration but NEVER this e.u. we have today. this e.u. is almost the worst path. i hate neo-liberalism. count on it.

    • avatar

      Do you have any idea wich my country is? my friend, no country on is own will be able to make a stand. not even yours! it’s that kind of thinking that grants victory to all those who want to mess with europeans.
      keep in mind that i have always been receptive only to western european integration and not to the idea that even east european countries (or even countries like turkey) have enough in common to be granted membership en masse . that includes ukraine too.
      the only way to stop the take-over of western europe by arab and muslim migrants is NOT to give power back to sovereign countries to address that threat . the brussels we have today has no power to stop this, but is all powerfull to repress citizens and impose economic bullshit, acording to opinions of people such as you. so what is it? all powerfull or pittifully weak?
      to take a stand for all eu countries we neet a diferente new EU. the kind of EU people refused (that refusal has much to do to the ineffectiveness of the current EU. people don’t let it continue to evolve to greated effectiveness and after refusing it, they complain about the lack of effectiveness)

  194. avatar

    @Matt the US also expanded to many states. It could never have done so with your ideas. The UK did the same with it`s expansion. It even had troops on the Scottish border during the negotiations of the ‘Acts of Union’ to force the Scottish to sign or it would have invaded Scotland. That was forcing them to join. Instead of the EU were they can willingly join. It took a very long time to make the US and UK work. Including the US splitting into 2 pieces a hundred years after it was founded with the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865.

    So according to your criteria the UK and US should be completely abandoned. And should have stayed with their own small states. So since i doubt that you support that now in 2016 it means you are shortsighted. You like your own system because that is what you now have and now know. The EU will stop growing after a few more members. Something which is already going slower and slower so it’s getting to the last nations that could ever join. And it could take a hundred years. Don`t forget the last 2 US states Hawaii en Alaska only joined in the 1950’s. Almost 200 years after the US was founded.

    The close EU cooperation has also brought 70 years of peace and development. Preceded by centuries and centuries of European warfare. Including European politicians allowing other major cooperation’s. Political cooperation’s on a European level like AIRBUS, CERN and ESA. And including hundreds of massive similar cooperation’s on an EU level now being build based on those first huge successes. Including an independent Galileo Positioning network independent of the US military GPS. Including the worlds largest telescope now being build the European E-ELT, including the worlds largest innovation network with Horizon2020. Including even a single European patent system to massively lower patent costs and make Europe far more competitive. Literally hundreds of massive projects like Airbus that are now being set up and build. Something that would mostly have not happened without the EU. Including a banking union to oversee banks. Including a common approach to tackle tax evasion. Including the worlds largest material research facilities now being build like the European Spallation Source and the European XFEL. The lists are enormous of what European cooperation brings and is building towards. Mostly done, executed or financially supported at an EU level.

    Cross border electricity sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe
    , common fishery which have finally stabilized most fish levels, tax evasion, terrorism networks, environment, end of massive roaming charges, food safety, innovation programs, etc, etc, etc. It is ludicrous to suggest Europe can still be successful by going back to the old days. As successful as South America or as Africa. No Europe should work more together not less. Problems will always exist. A reason to tackle them together at a European level. The EU has a land mass of 1/3 of the United States. It makes not sense in the 21 century to not work very closely together at a political level with the EU.

    • avatar

      thank you so much for citing the us as a country that “works”…. if the way I see things makes me shortsighted then yours makes you a blind man.

      guess what ! usa DO NOT work. you didn’t
      get the memo ? it’s an empire that is falling apart. nothing is “united” there. Basically there are redneck states and huge city-states. the social security system is a shame, some states are totally bankrupt. Cities like Detroit look like Baghdad…. the worst thing is that they have the only thing that may unite people and that europe does not even have: a common language. so again thank you for citing a declining model as an example for sthg that … well… works. please keep posting on the Internet you are an entertainment. Fun
      and good laughs are basic needs.

      This said, there is no doubt that collaborating on common projects can be successful. Airbus being an example. you are not learning anything to anyone but that what nice trying.

      Just Because some collaborations between eu countries are successful it’s a reason to create a unique country ? usa and russia are “at war” …. but still they are collaborating successfully in space… great let’s create a new country.

      Uniting weak and strong economies (let’s say greece and germany) in a superstate is
      just not doable. it’s not gonna get us a more powerful union. it’s gonna weaken a strong economy and a strong country without even improving a weak economy on the other hand.

      You don’t build a solid house with both sand and steel. admit it or keep being blind. Portuguese have not more in common with danes than the brits have in common with Russians.

      in other words you don’t get anything good by mixing very good and bad stuffs.

      a better union/collaboration (and not a
      united states of europe which is a failure by definition) is possible at the only condition that we link STRONG sovereign and independent countries. and we achieve this by letting those countries build their strength and power the way THEY want with THEIR very own rules at THEIR own pace. and not the other way around by forcing different economies, different cultures, different way of living to “collaborate”.

      Right now The Eu is nothing less than communism. call it what you want, disguise the truth if you want to but that’s what it is.

      oh and btw CERN is located …. in switzerland
      which is not part of the eu. still it’s
      not a problem for Switzerland as well as Israel to be part of it. just saying.

  195. avatar

    -people say that the EU we have today has no power to stop the ‘MIGRANT MENACE’ or ‘RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE’ , but at the same time is considered all powerfull to repress citizens and impose economic alterations, acording to opinions of some people . so what is it? all powerfull or pittifully weak?

    -the ineffectiveness of the current EU is on great part provoked by people that refused to let it continue to evolve to greated effectiveness.and after
    refusing it time and time again, they complain about the lack of effectiveness of the EU.so wich is it? you can’t have it both ways

    -The UK even had troops on the Scottish border during the negotiations of the ‘Acts of Union’ to force the Scottish to sign or it would have invaded
    Scotland. That was forcing them to join. Instead of the EU were they can willingly join. It took a very long time to make the US and UK work. So
    according to euroskeptical criteria the UK and US should be completely abandoned. And should have stayed with their own small states. that is
    very very shortsighted.

    -also shorthsighted was this new EU we have since the Lisbon treaty and subsequente arrangements. a new set of rules that even took the European Comission former influence, to give it to the Council, or Consilium. not to mention the greater lack of importance of the European Parliament. this was exactly the opposite wat Europe shoud had taken.

  196. avatar

    We foolishly vote for MP’s to fill that House of Commons in the hope that they might one day be able to Govern this Country themselves by and through our very own Common Law Constitution. This none can do as long as we remain in the EU. (To destroy our Constitution is indeed TREASON-that was why my Generation Fought in that WAR. Today’s politicins PAY foreigners to Govern us.
    My Generation was in that dreadful War-1939-1945 and we were indeed, as a family, bombed out, while others fought and many died, fighting those that wanted to Govern this Country then.

  197. avatar
    Orian Boël

    We must create a new type of federation. Not a copy of USA but a new sort of federation with a european government, a president of the Union, a chief of diplomacy, an anthem. So, it’s the European Union but more democratic and with more power (competences). Yes I want you for the United States of Europe

    • avatar

      like switzerland, you mean?

    • avatar

      We already have an anthem.

      “Auntie Europe wants you for USE army!” – lol that would be so awesome :)

    • avatar

      Agree, somewhat. E.U. has to listen to the peoples of Europe or it will collapse on its own. But it should be .

      If the E.U. is reformed and restructered into a very loose Confederacy of sovereign Nations instead of a ever stronger Union, even the Brits might want to remain.

      Moving a lot of powers back to the Nations are essential. Only a few areas that no single Nation can handle by it self should be common; ie trade, defence, the Commonmarket and maybe some environmental areas.

      No need for a European Parliament (we have our National Parliaments), get a popular elected EU-president instead. This President should be elected for a 5 year term, without ANY option to be re-elected. The President appoints a commision.

      European Council of Ministeres should be the only LAWMAKER.

      CONFEDERACY NOW… or a slow painful disentegration of the Union.

  198. avatar

    Yes, sure!
    Before it is too late…

  199. avatar

    don’t you think it’s already too late?
    the peoples of western europe – while suffering all these economic attacks in this new kind of war – blame the wrong ones in order to have a strong excuse to fragment europe and return to hatreds of old times. narrow brains. how can anyone have hope if everything is going the opposite way of the right path?

  200. avatar
    John Costigane

    The United States was born of us. It is time to learn from their experience in the light of the failed EU project. Can I share a country with foreigners? I like individuals in different countries in Europe. They could be in my country. Others must have their own personal examples.

    A European Republic,like the USA, would be a stalwart against tyranny, and more importantly a good example for other world regions eg Arabia, South Asia.

  201. avatar

    no because they all have their own government

  202. avatar

    There will never be a United States of Europe. The people at the moment cannot even understand each other. Homany different languages are their at present? That is WHY there may never be a United States of Europe.

  203. avatar

    This poem was written at the time when there was only 11 Nation States in the European Union. Europanto was created in 1996 by Diego Mariani a journalist, author and translator for the European Council of Ministers in Brussels. Europanto is a linguistic jest presented as a “constructive language” with a hodge-podge vocabulary from many European languages.


    Esté nueva idioma, no es crazy,
    Pero it can make unas personas trés lazy,
    No necesitar to learn eleven idiomas,
    For al final cette course, no hay diplomas.

    C’est trés facile than “Old English Pigion”,
    Per favore-grazie, you learn just a smidgen,
    Straight up mate, vous ne regrettez pas,
    Just cheek, sommi Old Greek, you understand JA?

    Was darf es sein more than anything now?
    For c’est un morçeau de gateau, mein Frau,
    C’est wild, to learn impotante Europese,
    Just mix up todo este idiomas avec mucho ease.

    Beware though, personas in Brussels just might,
    Qué commencer as a joke, may be taken as right,
    Si Europanto catches on, c’est vraiment to relate,
    Mucho interpreters will meet a very sad fate.

    Goodbye, Arrivederci, Gia sas, Hasta Luego, Adjö, Näkemiin,
    Farvel, Dag, Au revior, Até logo, and Auf Wiedersehen,
    N’est pas vraiment, C’est un horreur,
    Arrividerci———————until tomorreur!!!!

  204. avatar

    I am a citizen of Europe but not Polish! I do not feel i am Polish because of this f..king polish goverment! I want one country United States of Europe!!!

  205. avatar
    Larsson SE Morgan

    Unfortunally is the politics in the EU administration allready distance to a democratic process by voting themself for the new cheif of the staff, therefore will the EU project colaps from the inside becouse of outranged coruptiuon and none politician are of any intereest of the peoples intressed at all. Ho care about a detail quality of cucumber to be straigh not bended. Its administration for its power of destroy ordinary peoplels life.

  206. avatar
    dina m

    you would just love for this to happen. please dont be so narrow minded. if europeans were not so narrow minded we would have a future.

  207. avatar

    In my opinion, I think it is time for the United States of Europe to come true. This debate has been going on for a long time and I think it is slowly time to move towards this goal.
    If you look at Europe’s current problems, you can see that the United States of Europe would make many things easier.
    For example, if you take the problem of youth unemployment, the United States of Europe could immediately tackle the problem within the state. Therefore there wouldn`t be the need to set up a fund from which the affected country could borrow some money and pay it back later.The large European state could immediatly pay the needed money to the states seeking help and save crucial time.
    Moving on, the United States of Europe could also protect themselves better in crisis situations such as the Corona-Virus pandemic. With the right of a free movment across the borders within the United States of Europe there would be the possibility to share more and better help, with transporting face masks or medicine for example.
    It is known that the UK believes that the United States of Europe would “steal” the identity of the countries. The UK is also of the opinion that they would lose their powerful position and their sovereignty.
    It is very sure that when the United Nations of Europe would come true that every EU member state would lose parts of their freedeom but the member states would also gain many advantages of being part of the powerful United States of Europe.
    In my opinion it is time to set up the United States of Europe to provide solidarity and to make things easier.

  208. avatar

    First of all, the United States of Europe is a concept often rejected because people do not accept the possibility of a single European identity. As well as it they think requires a shared language and a unified nationality to have a unified political system like the US.
    According to Nigel Farage the only way to have democracy is to have national sovereignty. But there would be a growing loss of national sovereignty over immigration issues because Britain risks becoming the equivalent of an Ohio or Vermont which would no longer be a recognized sovereign state on the world stage.
    In contrast having a deeper level of European integration and the establishment of a unified political system provides strong, practical benefits which do not involve a shared identity or language. Furthermore, it has much more advantages such as freedom of movement across borders, free movement of goods and services, security for cross-border economic activity, Europe-wide transport structures as well as common security arrangements.
    The states could tackle problems much easier as the United States of Europe like the refugee crisis or youth unemployment because they would be able to work better together and help each other immediately by sending help or money. As well as in the Corona crises aid and medicine could be shared much easier and faster which would lower the number infected people and deaths.
    In conclusion I think United States of Europe should be accomplished to make it more efficient and easier for states to work together in the future.

  209. avatar

    Personally, I think that it would be definitely desirable to accomplish the United States of Europe (USE) because it would give us not only unity, but furthermore many advantages to tackle problems that affect the European Union, such as European financial and tax rules, refugee politics, pandemic issues, military actions and defence politics etc. If the United States of Europe would be established there would be a higher chance of success for different measures to tackle also the youth unemployment problem. Measures, such as a Europe-wide unemployment insurance system would be effective as long as rules and regulations would be implemented by all members. Without the USE, there would be a bigger effort to organize (e.g. fund administration), that would be in addition even more complicated. In addition to easier ways to tackle problems, the introduction of the United States of Europe would furthermore include the free movement of goods and services, legal certainty for cross-border economic activities, Europe-wide transportation infrastructure, the right to move freely across borders and common security arrangements. All of these mentioned advantages would provide a better security and safety for each member in case of critical situations, quicker exchanges in order to help a country in need, more efficient in tackling international problems, etc. Economically it would be a big counterweight to the United States of America and China and with respect of peace, it could be a chance to have all members united, following the same rules, laws and rights under one European powerful government.
    That is why I believe it is time to establish the United States of Europe in order to unify the Member States of the European Union and benefit from its advantages.

  210. avatar

    For my part I would say that it’s time to start and try to build the United States of Europe. It should be tried, it’s time to try something new. The chance that this will be a failure is small and if this is going to happen they can just stop and go back to the old system.
    The United States of Europe is a good plan to bring Europe together so that they started working as a team together. They should always have one solution for everything. That there is no difference in every country. They should be the same.
    Those United States of Europe could help in crises, like now the coronavirus the countries should help each other and find solutions on how they could stop this pandemic or just get the rate of infections lower.
    In particular, they should try to work together as a big country with the same solutions and the same approach.
    As well as when we look at the youth unemployment problem the United States of Europe could help each other with money or with more answers. So that nor every country has to fight for themselves.
    So in conclusion I would say that the United States of Europe would be a good idea to form a union which helps each other and doesn’t have to fight alone.

  211. avatar

    I think that the unification of each member state is imperative and believe that the United States of Europe should exist. The main purpose of the European Union was to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. That is why we should continue to unite Europe and build a strong and working system in each member state. Currently the bond between member states still aren’t strong enough to solve problems such as unemployment. If we would have a single political system in Europe there would be many advantages, especially for the member states that are currently suffering financially and politically. Past struggles, like the financial crisis, and current struggles, like the virus outbreak and unemployment can be solved when member states have the support of others if they belong to a United States of Europe. Right now the spread of the coronavirus in Europe could have been dealt with sooner if all member states had cooperated as a single body. Financial crisis and unemployment issues could be solved more quickly and more efficiently, because member states would share their resources within the EU. Financially it won’t be very difficult to implement this system in each member state, but it will be difficult on a cultural level. Europe has many different cultures and mixing them together will be difficult because ideologies vary between member states.

  212. avatar

    My view is that there is no other chance to “create” the United States of Europe longterm. I am convinced that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.
    Why is that ?
    For sure the EU (and its member states) had been confronted by various critical issues over the past years. The refugee crisis, youth unemployment, financial Crisis, Covid-19 etc.. It has been prooven that such kind of big challenges can only be solved by a joint approach and under the umbrella of solidarity. Of course this is still a long way to go. At this point in time there is no common language. We are facing different political and legal Systems. This all needs to be harmonized without loosing the individual strenght and culture of each nation in Europe.
    We will recieve so many advantages (or not loose them because they are already there) that there is no alternative to survive as a continent at all.
    Just think about the free travel, the free movement of goods, european wide legal Systems and a common security and infrastructure.
    Last but not least Europe needs to compete on the world wide markets against strong market like China and the USA. If Europe is not following a joint approach but going back to single countries it is loosing its joint power and will no longer be a global player.
    So lets be united without loosing our national identity and culture, because cultural diversity a big advantage too.

  213. avatar

    In theory diversity should be seen as a positive rather than a negative and should unite people right? This is why in theory “The United States of Europe” seems like a good idea, however this is just not the case on the matter. While “The Untied State of Europe” may offer some advantages, like free movement of goods and services or European-wide transportation infrastructure, I still think “The United States of Europe” shouldn’t be accomplished in the future. In my opinion it would create an outrageous amount of controversy and even the “simpler” problems that would occur, would bring too many debates along with them. What would the national language be? What would the capital be? As you can imagine these simpler questions would create so much dissatisfaction throughout the population no matter what the answer is. And how can we then except the government to solve the real important problems, like the refugee crisis or the high youth unemployment rate. Moreover, given the history of Europe, where many wars have taken place over nationalism and independence, or even taking recent Brexit events into consideration, makes the task of accomplishing a “United States of Europe” near to impossible and extremely unrealistic.

  214. avatar

    In my opinion the United Staes of Europe is a good idea, but not a realistic one; the function of the EU has, up to now, been to far away from the function of a connection between the citizens of the member states to now become something resembling a government over all EU citizens.

    The EU’s primary function was to connect the governments of the European countries- economically and politically. This means that the EU primary function wasn’t to connect the people living the EU. This can also be seen in the process of electing the institutions of the EU: the citizens of the member states have very little say in that, leading to them not really feeling obligated or represented by the EU. The member states’ governments have more say: they elect most people directly. This mostly has practical reasons, but results in the countries governments being connected rather than the citizens of the ember states.

    This phenomenon can be seen in other places as well: Great Britain left the EU by a vote amongst its citizens: the majority of people wanted to leave the EU. This is because the people of the EU don’t feel represented by the EU and most definitely not united. The British didn’t feel a stronger connection to any person in the EU than to any person in India, or Brazil. Many people argue that that is a sign that the EU has failed. I disagree, the EU’s function isn’t to unite the people but the governments. That isn’t a bad thing, it just means that the UNITED States of Europe are an idea that is far away from becoming reality.

    This lacking sense of unity would be crucial to the USE. The most prominent example of a similar occurrence would be the USA. The US can exist as one country despite the fact that the area is so huge due to the fact that its citizens are so patriotic: a person in Florida will feel connected to a person in Michigan over both of them being American and sharing one constitution, one government and one president. This isn’t the case in Europe: a person in Germany will not feel connected to a person in Grace over them both sharing the same (for example) president of the European council. Even though Europe isn’t as big as the US, the cultural differences and lack of same language are even larger, which further alienates the people in the EU from each other.

    I think that before agreeing to such a thing, you first need to as the question, if you would really consent to being part of a “country like bond” with every member state of the EU. And if you think that it would be justified to take the money and effort needed in your country and put it into another because it is part of the EU. Sadly, my answer is no – I simply don’t feel obligated to help a person in Greece or Romania more than one in Brazil or India. Therefore I would not vote for the USE and I think that many wouldn’t either, or chance their minds after they experienced it- the lack of empathy between the citizens of the member states is to big and the difference to the current status would be to large to really be popular enough to work.

    So even though the concept of the USE is a good one which would make financial and political decisions easier, it is not one that would work in the near future. It might sound good on paper to unite countries further, but one can’t forget that this would effect every single person in the EU in a way many would really consent to. In order for the USE to work, the EU would need to work on unifying the people in the EU over their shared membership. Before that happens I don’t see the project USE working.

  215. avatar

    One can argue, that a united Europe won’t work, because of the different cultures and languages, which could cause problems. Also, the Brexit in addition to the united Europe could cause the UK to lose influence and power, because there would be the two grand unions, leaving the UK alone.
    Still, I’m of the opinion that the United States of Europe idea should be tried, because it could have many advantages. Not only would the trade and crossing borders be easier, but also could it solve some big problems we have at the moment. The refugees that come to Europe could easily be spread in a union and Europe would tackle the youth unemployment together and would help each other by investing money.
    In conclusion, I think, the idea of an united Europe should be tried, because it would help the single countries in times of a crises.

  216. avatar

    One could argue that a united Europe wouldn’t be a good idea, because the several member states have different cultures and languages, which could be a problem in decision making. Also, the union idea in addition to the Brexit could cause difficulties for the UK, because there would be these two unions and they would be alone and powerless.
    Still, I’m of the opinion that the EU should try the idea of the United States of Europe. Not only would the trade and transportation be easier in the countries, but also could it solve some of the current problems. The refugee crises could be handled better in a union, because the refugees could easily be spread in the different countries. Additionally, the youth unemployment could be solved together united, which would be better, because the countries with a higher number would get help from whole Europe and wouldn’t have to go through this alone.
    In conclusion, I think that the EU should try to make this idea of a united Europe work, because the member states would help each other out in times of crises financially.

  217. avatar

    I dont think its a good idea to start the united states of europe, because as we see in the USA there would be many problems in our society. Some countries also have a great economy and by making a united state, these economys would fall of. A problem would also be, that everyone wants to speak the same languages and I dont think the people have the motivation to learn a new language and leave their old in the past. Another problem would be that there wouldnt be European competitions because countries cant play or battle each other and I think lots of people have a sport they like and where they want to help and believe in their country.

  218. avatar

    The United Nations of Europe sounds like a very good and sensible plan in theory. The independent countries would then be a common power and could keep up with America or China. Also, the borders would still be open to everyone, as now. You can move freely within the countries. Besides, it would no longer be so difficult to enforce things such as templates to counteract climate change. Of course, that would also be a restriction for the individual countries. This union of the countries would also mean that one could improve the entire infrastructure of the countries and of course one would also have the resources for more security.
    However, the implementation of a united nation of Europe is not that easy in practice. The different countries in Europe have very different mentalities. Some countries make precise plans and stick to them in difficult situations, but other countries tend to act on the gut and that would be a first conflict. Another problem is that the countries have completely different political beliefs. In my opinion, these differences would be far too different to have a united nation of Europe.

  219. avatar

    In my opinion, we don´t need to create the USE, because we are already part of a working network of individual member states that are successfully cooperating. This community provides international solidarity and support. The member states enjoy advantages like the freedom of movement and the absence of tariffs. This program works without the elimination of the independent member states. These states have to deal with different issues and they are based on different political systems. The unification would destroy the national identities and many institutions and procedures that form the national heritage will be made redundant. Moreover it is important to keep diversity. Personally, I think that the way from the EU to the USE would be very complicated and exhausting.
    Additionally, there is a great risk of disagreement between the regions and many citizens might feel neglected by the government.

  220. avatar
    Emilie F.

    I am of the opinion that the idea behind “the United States of Europe” brings advantages but should not necessarily be implemented directly.
    Like Ursula von der Leyen, I think this is a long project and other priorities should be set first. I also believe that the diversity of the member states makes up Europe and therefore it is unique but for the creation of the USE it wouldn’t even need one common language and nationality Europe-wide. I am aware of the economical and political benefits of creating “the United States of Europe”. The introduction of the USE could provide the free movement of goods and services, legal certainty for cross-border economic activities, Europe-wide transportation infrastructure and common security arrangements. In addition, it would be way easier for the EU to tackle major problems like the refugee crisis or the high rates of youth unemployment as it would take less time and effort to implement the necessary measures.
    In general, there would be a deeper European integration, the EU would be taken even more seriously by other major powers in the world and simply would have much more power and opportunities.

  221. avatar

    Although from an economic perspective it might be a very good idea to build a United States of Europe to have a counterpart towards the other big economy players like China or the USA, in my opinion the “United States of Europe” shouldn’t be accomplished.
    Based on a diverse culture without having the same language and traditions throughout the EU, a possible USE is not at all comparable with the USA.
    A United Europe would force the participating member states to share European sovereignty instead of being able to maintain their own sovereignty.
    Current developments like the Brexit forces the EU leaders to reflect on the further process of the EU, as similar ambitions are also seen in other countries.
    To convince 513,5 million EU citizens to support a USE the advantages for everyone and every country must be very clear, which is not the fact so far.

  222. avatar

    As people are discussing, whether the creation of the “United States of Europe” is a good idea, I will present both pro and con arguments and will finally comment on this topic.

    Firstly, the United States of Europe would be very efficient in theory. Decisions could be made fast, as transportation of goods, finding jobs, economic aid and security would all be directed from a centralized government. Also, problems like corruption could be fought more easily. And finally the USE could become a global geopolitical player, just like the USA or China.

    On the other side, however, one has to ask themselves, whether such a state would be realistic. And that’s the problem. In a state the population are united and represented by one centralised government. Many people are patriotic and are proud of their nation. However, many of these people think, that the EU isn’t representing them, which leads to them not having a real connection with the Union. As Europe’s diversity is also pretty big, people won’t feel as one nation. And finally there raises the question: How should the state be organized? Should the government be centralized or decentralized? How should the USE be geopolitically? What should be the capital? And as all of these question aren’t answered yet, one can see that the USE are a project for the future.

    All in all, we can see that the USE are a project for the future and that this project is pretty unlikely to come true even in a few decades. (Rising) nationalism countries could lead to this state becoming a “Giant without real power”, where some states officially are part of the EU, but still continue to go their own way. Still, I think, that such a state is pretty realisitic in several centuries, as the level of globalization is rising every year.

  223. avatar

    In 2011, Ursula von der Leyen introduced her support to the idea of having a more integrated Europe with several states just like the United States of America.
    Whether the so-called “United States of Europe” should be accomplished in the future, is a good question and definitely has valid arguments for both sides. Ursula von der Leyen, already stated in 2011, that she completely supports the idea of having a more integrated Europe, with others such as Nigel Farage, the leader of the Independent of the UK Independent Party, completely disagreeing with the idea .

    On one hand, one has to see that it would have huge advantages. Just like the EU’s function primarily is, the USE could allow for more freedom to move around borders and exchange goods. There could be common security restrictions for everyone with no complications and most importantly, Europe would even more be able to compete with massive countries such the US and China. Generally, it would be a lot more efficient, as decisions would be able to be taken quicker, as there would be rather one functioning government (to control USE) just like in the US.

    However, with all that being said, it’s important to look at whether or not this is actually even feasible and whether we, as EU citizens, will actually want to commit to something like the USE.
    And see that is exactly where the problem lies. For a USE to be established in the future, it is going to take the consent of all member states and therefore all their citizens. With every single country speaking a different language, and having different characteristics and the way they go through life, it is quite hard to say that it is going to be easy to gather 27 member states under one “empire”. Not only that, but we’ve already looked at how some consider the EU to not be democratic enough, as they aren’t really given a chance to make an influence. For such reasons, they don’t feel represented by the EU and this is unfortunately a main reason, for why the UK, one of it’s biggest members, left the EU by a vote from its citizens (Brexit). In their eyes, they weren’t represented enough and didn’t feel any sort of bond with the Union. With problems, as mentioned, like this, I doubt that the USE will become a thing in the near future. If the EU, however, works on making sure that their citizens have more of a chance to participate, then it could happen eventually, (but this will take a lot of time).

    Overall, I would like to sum up that, while it does generally does have a lot of benefits, in terms of efficiency and freedom, it isn’t feasible at all, as the gaps in unity, languages and cultural aspects, will ultimately lead to many not wanting to commit to something like the United States of America. Personally, I don’t feel a special connection with a person that lives in Spain or Italy or Greece. Therefore, the EU should really focus on integrating its members more, if they really want to, like the president of the European Commission (Ursula von der Leyen), want to establish the United States of Europe.

  224. avatar

    I don’t believe that the United States of Europe should be formed because that would take each countries individuality away. Even though it would definitely help from an economic perspective, it would only lead to more conflict. Each country has its own language and culture. This method worked in America because each and every state is similar in away. Meanwhile, in Europe, most countries are very different. But I do think that the current situation in Europe could be improved. I believe that if we could unite each countries economies while still keeping their individuality, it would benefit Europe greatly. The purpose of the European Union was to help each other when help is needed; not to become one entity.

  225. avatar

    The idea of a single European country has existed for a long time and some have even talked about forming a republic, although many suggest a federation, a so-called “United States of Europe”. This idea often calls for radical opinions either for or against federalising the Union, and both sides have valid points.

    Firstly, many argue that a European federation would never work because there are simply too many barriers between the member states that would need to be overcome, such as language, nationalism and separate identitities. These barriers would prove to be a real challenge and, if they were never overcome, lead to a fall of the EU as a whole.

    On the other hand, there have been many things that the EU has done that were previously thought to be impossible: peace in Europe, a single market between separate countries, a currency used in completely different economies and free travel between states. These seemed impossible at first but later didn’t turn out to be the disaster that many predicted them to be.

    Lastly, a federal Europe is what is needed in the increasingly globalised world with tensions heating up between China and the USA, the EU needs to become a global player in world politics. The “United States of Europe” would be capable of performing more efficiently and decisions would benefit everyone.

    In conclusion, the topic of a federalised Europe is definitely not easily discussed and includes many issues that would need to be solved. A federalisation could prove to be the strength that Europe needs to stand up in the rising tensions globally and work more efficiently and interconnectedly.

  226. avatar

    Overall I believe that an organisation/political system like the United states of Europe must be implemented in order for the European states to be able to compete internationally economically as well as in other matters since we all know that making an impact or fighting a crisis united is much more easy than trying to make your voice heard on your own or beeing on your own in times of helplessness. With this beeing said, I would also like to point out, that it is way too early for this. The shier enonomic and social imbalance between the members of the European Union are way too big. Imbalance creates envy and mistrust, both of these states of mind aren´t very helpful when one tries to unite the European Nations. But these circumstances are not the only hurdle. Just now the UK decided to leave the EU which of course is a major blow to the vision of a completely united Europe. One of the main reasons the UK left the EU was that they felt like their national sovereignity was slowly slipping away and ,to be honest, why wouldn´t they feel that way? The EU is a comlicated thing for an outstanding person to understand and it doesn´t help that the EU does little to eliminate the problem of lacking transperancy. A lack of transperancy causes mistrust and as mentioned before, this is quite bad for a union. If people don´t trust a system it effectivly loses it´s power due to the fact that the power behind a system is always it´s people. As long as the EU is not able to display full transperancy, a United states of Europe is impossible to achieve. One also needs to take into consideration that unlike the U.S. we as Europeans don´t neccessarily share the same cultural identity and language. I am not trying to say that these factors are a complete dealbreaker because they aren´t. But this will definitely slow down the process of unification.
    All in all, I would conclude that a “United states of Europe” will definitely bring huge benefits in the future but the time is just not right. I would consider it to be too early. There are too many things that divide us especially social and economic imbalance. If these hurdles were to be overcome I believe that a unified Europe would be possible. But since they aren´t overcome and probably won´t be in the next few decades I only can assume that Europe will need to wait quite some time for it´s unification.

  227. avatar

    Even though having a United States of Europe might seem like a good idea to get more economic growth and unity for all of Europe, I don’t think it would be that great when executed.
    While the economy would grow due to the states all being one state, especially the smaller states would lose their individuality and culture. Countrys would blend into each other, leading to bigger countries almost absorbing those little cultures. I mean you could basically put the whole world under one state, or every continent, but do we really want such great power at just one or a few governments?
    I think having a unified Europe would not make a lot of sense and people often only see the economic part but are ignoring the social and cultural part, which for me personally is more important.

  228. avatar

    The idea of having a USE has got advantages and disadvantages.

    On the one hand you can say, that all the countries then being united would lose their identity. It could also be possible, that some of them would get lost in a way, since no one would recognize them in the big unity.

    But on the other hand one can say, that having a United State of Europe also faces several advantages. First of all, the USE would promote its economy. There would be the right to move freely across boarders and to transport goods freely across boarders. Additionally, current problems such as the refugee crisis or the youth unemployment would be solved more easily, since all states would work together.

    To sum up one can say that having a USE has got some points that argue against it but also many advantages and that the USE might solve current problems.
    This is why I´m of the opinion, that we should try to have a USE.

  229. avatar
    Nicoara Andrei

    Hey, I’m Andrei from Romania, and from my point of view, for humanity to evolve, it must be one and these are the first steps towards a united WORLD and if you think about it, it’s the idea of ​​the European Union to forget about differences and realize that we are not enemies. allies, friends, BROTHERS. I know it sounds crazy but for humanity to develop. Wars must stop, people must focus on the development and growth of humanity because it will not happen we will destroy each other. So yes Europe must be one for love, peace and development.

  230. avatar

    “Do you feel that your voice is heard by politicians?” What a ridiculous question! When EU is made up of 27 member states, 24 official languages, 447.7 million total population…How many individual interests and how many individual voices politicians have to hear? When democracy emphasized so much on individuals, everyone is pursuing self-interest of oneself, the collective would unavoidably be torn apart. It is for the reason of collective security the EU is established. How to grow a nation of EU if SWIFT is still dominate EU trades and influence EU foreign policy, if EU is depending on the US to manage its security issue…

  231. avatar

    When the world system has changed to a global system, the typical characteristics of globalization is interdependence, interconnectness…to overcome its its challenges and turbulent changes, collective effort is required.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.